Title: Gospel of Judas
Description: Interesting?
Description: Interesting?
Deltasix - April 14, 2006 02:58 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Shady past of Gospel of Judas raises questions, concerns Apr. 14, 2006. 01:00 AM -New York Times When the National Geographic Society announced last week that it had gained access to a 1,700-year-old document known as the Gospel of Judas, it described how a deteriorating manuscript, unearthed in Egypt three decades ago, had made its way through the shady alleys of the antiquities market to a safe-deposit box on Long Island and eventually to a Swiss art dealer who "rescued" it from obscurity. But there's more to the story. The art dealer was herself detained several years ago in an unrelated Italian antiquities smuggling investigation. After she failed to profit from the sale of the gospel in the private market, she struck a deal with a Swiss foundation, the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art, run by her lawyer, Mario Roberty, under which she could make as much or more. Later, National Geographic paid the foundation to restore the manuscript and bought the rights to the text and the story about the discovery. As part of her arrangement with the foundation, the dealer, Frieda Tchacos Nussberger, stands to gain from $1 million to $2 million (U.S.) from those National Geographic projects, her lawyer said. Details of how the manuscript was found are clouded. According to National Geographic, it was discovered in the 1970s, sold to a dealer, and passed through various hands in Europe and to the United States. Legal issues surrounding its transit are vague. Emerging details are raising concerns among some scholars at a time of growing scrutiny of dealers who sell antiquities and of the museums and collectors. The information also calls into question the completeness of National Geographic's depiction of some individuals like Tchacos Nussberger and its disclosure of all the financial relationships involved. NEW YORK TIMES |
Any thoughts?
Kevin Beckman - April 14, 2006 03:33 PM (GMT)
To be honest I've heard of the Gospel of Judas before, but I've never looked too much into it though. Once I get my connection back I'll look through it and see if it's worth any kind of merit.
Zairik - April 14, 2006 06:29 PM (GMT)
I've heard about it before, but didn't really bother to look into it much since I'm not Gnostic.
| QUOTE |
| The Gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel, the text of which was partially reconstructed in 2006. It has a strong positive focus on Judas Iscariot, who according to the canonical Gospels betrayed Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities who crucified Jesus. The Gospel of Judas frames this act positively (in line with Gnostic thinking - the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter portrays Jesus as laughing while being crucified), as an obedience to the instructions of Jesus, rather than a betrayal. The positive framing follows from the gnostic notion that the human form is sinful, and that Judas would put into motion events that would release the Spirit of Christ from its physical restraints. The Gospel of Judas does not claim to represent the original Christian faith. On the contrary its message is that the disciples have not learned the true gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, which this part of the gospel exemplifies: "Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him: Step away from the others [the disciples] and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve [disciples] may again come to completion with their god." It is thus a miscomprehension to think that the Gospel of Judas represents the original Christian message; it was authored to shore up the competing Gnostic philosophy. According to The Gospel of Judas, Jesus is a Gnostic teacher. (It is of course up to everyone to reflect on the probability that a Gnostic teacher (Jesus) should gather twelve disciples and then reveal his true teachings to only one of them.) The true significance of the Gospel of Judas is still unknown, since it has only recently been translated and even the original is highly fragmented. The recent public revelation of this ancient text provides new insight into the diversity of early beliefs about Jesus. |
Keys - April 15, 2006 03:32 AM (GMT)
My thoughts on Judas were always if he had a clean conscience, why commit suicide?
Zairik - April 15, 2006 03:34 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Keys @ Apr 14 2006, 11:32 PM) |
| My thoughts on Judas were always if he had a clean conscience, why commit suicide? |
The only question I really cared about Judas was, how did he commited suicide?
One part said he hung himself, another part says he flung himself off of something like a cliff and he died.
The only explaination I got was that people said the flinging off a cliff version was just something people said because of what he did, as if they were trying to make his death more horrible than it was. He did something really bad so they wanted him to die in a grusome way.
Deltasix - April 15, 2006 03:41 PM (GMT)
I always thought he hung himself, actually. I believe thats what I was taught in CCD and all that fun stuff.
Zairik - April 15, 2006 03:48 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Deltasix @ Apr 15 2006, 11:41 AM) |
| I always thought he hung himself, actually. I believe thats what I was taught in CCD and all that fun stuff. |
You'll have to forgive my ignorance. What's CCD?
| QUOTE |
| Judas’ suicide: A mystery explained Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). “This establishes the fact that Judas fastened a noose around his neck and jumped from the branch to which the other end of the rope was attached.”6 In addition, Acts 1:18 reveals that “falling headlong, [Judas] burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out”—a considerably more dramatic picture than Matthew gives. It is terrible enough to commit suicide, but to take a fall, have your body burst open, and your inner parts gush out, is horrendous to say the least. The question is: Do we have a contradiction in the Bible, or is it possible to harmonize Matthew and Luke? It is possible to harmonize:7 The limb from which Judas hung was over a precipice, that is, the valley of Hinnom. In fact, to this day there are many dry trees on the brink of this canyon near the traditional site of Judas’ suicide. Thus, it could be that the weight of his body on a dry and dead limb broke the limb causing his body to plummet into the canyon and burst open. Or, perhaps the rock shattering earthquake that ripped through Jerusalem at the moment Jesus “yielded up His spirit” caused the limb to break and plunged the swollen, three day old corpse into the canyon splitting it open (cp. Matthew 27:51). Or, even a strong gust of wind, funneled through the canyon, could have caused the limb to break. Source |
Deltasix - April 15, 2006 04:18 PM (GMT)
Sunday school.
Theodidaktos - April 15, 2006 06:18 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| The only question I really cared about Judas was, how did he commited suicide? |
-An essay i wrote, and later posted it in my blog on BoR (throroughly explains the two accounts):
[Sorry, as last I knew this site's actually URL was BANNED on BoR, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to re-post that here, sorry and thanks]
-Delta
No problem. I hope it's not too long or off topic though.
I was onto the Gospel of Judas when news started coming back out about it. Charles Hedrick, a professor who was able to study the manuscript for a short time wrote a transcription of it and a preliminary translation. You can read his translation of it in my library here: http://www.xenoserv.com/Uploads/theodidakt...spel_judas.html
It's not much to read. I'm sure the published translation will be much better after reconstruction. There are also other parts to the codex, can't remember what writings they were.
Anyway, manuscripts and textual criticism really interests me. So i eat this kind of stuff up.
Theodidaktos - April 15, 2006 06:38 PM (GMT)
"The Death of A Traitor"*
| QUOTE | ||
*Other possible titles: "Nectie Remedy," "Blood-n-Guts Judas," "Say Goodnight to the Bad Guy," etc. Matthew 27:1-10 VS? Acts 1:16-20 The New Testament provides two recordings of the death of Judas Iscariot. One is found in Matthew 27, the other is in Acts 1. However, these two accounts seem to conflict in many ways. All scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), so what is the purpose of these two seemingly contrary passages, and how are they reconciled to not conflict? “Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2 They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.””-Matthew 27:1-10 (NIV) “18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, ‘May another take his place of leadership.’”-Acts 1:18-20 (NIV) The first and most obvious trouble you come across with these two passages is that the description of Judas' death seems to contradict. Matthew says that Judas hung himself, but Luke (author of Acts) says that he fell “headlong” and his stomach split open, spilling his intestines. Which is it? Some apologists have attempted to reconcile this by saying that it was both, that Judas hung himself and then the rope broke and he fell on rocks below, splitting his stomach open. The theory of the rope breaking is rather hard to swallow because its so unlikely. Let me elaborate. The process of hanging back then was done with a short drop, because experimentation with long drop would not be concocted or perfected for centuries (Wikipedia). What that means is, Judas would have used a short rope to hang himself and would have jumped from a short height. This makes the possibility that the rope broke when he jumped slim to none. A rope of any decent condition would not have broke and even if it did, his body would not have enough time to spin upside down (remember, Luke says he fell headlong) and crash onto the ground, this is of course after his neck broke from the jump because Matthew seems to describe hanging as the cause of death (neck braking is very unlikely with the short drop method). Also remember somebody would have had to known he hung himself, not so if the rope broke immediately (although it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to make that conclusion if they saw him with a broken rope around his neck).  So the rope did not break when he jumped but some say the rope could have broken over time. The dry and hot desert environment certainly permits this idea somewhat. If Judas’ body had not been discovered for several days then the rope could have dried up and snapped. But his body still would not have enough time to flip upside down. I’ll take this idea a little further. If Judas hung himself from a very tall tree then you would think that his body would have enough time to flip however, the process of hanging itself argues against this. Because, when someone dies by means of hanging, the heart stops pumping blood and because of their weight and the vertical position all the blood rushes to the feet and legs causing them to swell. Thus, a body’s weight would be unequally distributed and much heavier in the legs. So, if the rope did break after time, the law of gravity tells us that Judas’ feet would have still hit the ground first--even if it were a long fall. We see it would be just impossible for Judas to both hang himself and fall headlong and split his stomach open. This is of course excluding a miracle of God, but I think it’s safe to assume that God didn’t miraculously break the rope and spin Judas’ body. So, this does not reconcile these two accounts. Now what? We must be reading into one of this accounts wrong. Which one? Matthew’s recording of Judas’ death is told in a chronological recording of Jesus’ last hours (although Judas’ story is told as more of a short flashback). There can be no mistake that it happened as Matthew said. So do we throw Acts out? By no means! Under what circumstances did Luke write about Judas’ death? While Acts is considered New Testament history, the history recorded in Acts 1 is not the death of Judas, it’s the speech of Peter! Peter is informally speaking to his brothers and sisters, he stands up to announce that Matthias has been chosen to replace Judas who betrayed Jesus. Since the story in Acts is not recorded as history per se then it must have a deeper meaning. It does indeed. Think about how Peter describes Judas’ death, he says he fell headlong. This had symbolic meaning then, as it does now. Ever heard it said figuratively that someone “fell headfirst” or “went of the deep end”? With the first part of Peter’s description he is saying that Judas fell headfirst spiritually, he went off the deep end. He forsook his Lord for 30 pieces of silver. The next part says that his body burst open and his intestines spilled out. This is also figurative. Ever heard the saying “poured out your heart”? Well according to Jewish idiom the intestines were linked symbolically to feelings just as our heart is today. For the following few verses I do not feel the NIV accurately translates, so I am using the Modern King James Version (the KJV works also, possibly more translations but I only checked the NIV, MKJV and KJV). In Genesis 43:30 Joseph weeps (note the relation of weeping and his bowels): “And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.” David in Psalm 22:14 speaks of a great grieving inside: “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” In Jeremiah 4:19, bowels are related to a restless heart: “My bowels, my bowels! I convulse in pain. O walls of my heart! My heart is restless within me; I cannot be silent because you have heard, O my soul, the sound of the ram's horn, the alarm of war.” In Philippians 1:8, the bowels are used to express longing: “For God is my witness how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.” So, what Peter is saying is, Judas went off the deep end spiritually and [figuratively] spilled his guts because of the grief within him. Or as another apologist put it: “Judas fell recklessly from God, lost all his mercy and kindness and turned in his good friend Jesus” (Boatwright). Although “all his intestines spilled out” is figurative, I’m sure it was no exaggeration. Imagine of the worst guilt you have ever felt, and think of what that was about. Now imagine how bad you would feel if you betrayed the savior of the world, God’s perfect spotless lamb; sent to save you, for 30 pieces of silver (about as much, as one person put it, for Judas to buy a new set of rims for his carriage). The two descriptions of Judas’ death cooperate thoroughly, one describes his physical death (by hanging) and the other, his spiritual death. There is yet another troublesome part to this equation. Who actually bought the field? Matthew says that the priests bought the field with the silver that Judas threw back at them, Luke says that Judas bought the field. Which one is it? We have already assessed that the account given in Acts is figurative, so when reading Acts 1:18-20, remember that you have a little room to stretch. I mean, Acts says Judas bought the field but is it that hard to believe that he bought it in a roundabout way? I’ll explain, but first I want to point out that translations can be potentially misleading here. There are two words I want to look at: reward (Greek: misqo) and acquired (Greek: ktaomai). About ktaomai: Steven Elliott has a web page on this same subject, he presents a non-Christian viewpoint, but I want to quote him. He says that, "The Greek verb is ‘ktaomai.’ It seems that it means to come into possession of something. So, ‘acquired’ is a reasonable literal translation. When money is the means by which the thing was acquired, as in this case, ‘bought’ seems like a reasonable translation" (Elliott). Steven is correct in saying that when money is the means by which something is acquired a correct translation is “bought”. But think outside the box here. Peter does not say thirty pieces of silver, we all assume that the “reward” he is speaking of is money and therefore that he bought the field with the silver. However if we look at the definition for misqo which is the word often translated reward we see that it is not confined to money. Misqo: "1) dues paid for work 1a) wages, hire 2) reward: used of the fruit naturally resulting from toils and endeavours 2a) in both senses, rewards and punishments 2b) of the rewards which God bestows, or will bestow, upon good deeds and endeavours 2c) of punishments" (Greek Bible) Therefore “punishment” is also an accurate translation. But even if misqo is translated reward the English definition also supports that it can be something other than money: "something that is given in return for good or evil done or received and esp. that is offered of given for some service or attainment" (Websters). It’s obvious that a non-Christian would assume that “with the reward he got for his wickedness” alludes to money. In fact just about everybody assumes that. But, Christians, consider this scripture: "For the wages of sin is death"-Romans 6:23a. So the reward Judas got for his wickedness was not the thirty pieces of silver, it was death. If we look at the actual definition of ktaomai it means, "to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess" (Greek Bible). Strong’s also says this: "to get, i.e. acquire (by any means; own)" (Strong 2932). So, when it is said that he acquired the field, remember the definition means to acquire by any means. One critic has said "In ordinary language, we do not say that ‘this man purchased a field for $100 if someone else purchased it for their own usage with money thrown away by its original owner" (Berggren). He is correct, but this is not "ordinary language" we are reading in Acts 1. It is 2000 year old Greek written by Jewish men, translated into modern English. We cannot interpret the Bible according to modern language. The effect is like interpreting the U.S. Constitution in 14th century German, only more so! Thus we see that Peter’s account of Judas’ death is figurative. As for who bought the field, it was shown that ktaomai as used in acts means to acquire by any means, so its not saying that Judas himself bought the field, but he acquired it because of his wicked deeds; bought it with the reward, misqo, of his iniquity. Another question arises about these two passages, how was the field named? Elliott says "In Matt 27:7-8 we see that the field of blood was named because it was purchased with blood money. In Acts 1:18-19 it seems likely that the field of blood was named as a result of Judas' bloody death." If you think about this for a little while, it makes perfect sense. The Pharisees did everything against Jesus in secret, they didn’t want to people to revolt, or to tarnish their good reputation (sarcasm). They would have tried desperately to keep their purchase of the field with blood money secret. They probably succeeded and it was therefore not known to the general populace why the field was named as it was. Therefore the people called it "Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" because they had heard of Judas’ betrayal and suicide. "Wait one minute! I thought Acts’ account of Judas death was figurative. Why would they call it the Field of Blood if Judas didn’t split open and make a bloody mess like Peter says?" What the people know and say are often very different from what happened. Maybe others heard Peter’s account of the traitor’s death and took it literally. But, most likely there was blood involved in Judas’ death. Hanging can be a clean death, but it can also be very messy. Assuming that Judas had been hanging a long time (more than a day) he would have began to decompose in the hot sun. His blood which would no longer be pumped through his body would all rush to his feet causing significant swelling and they would probably bust open in time. Not to mention wild animals, vultures and such, that probably had at his corpse for several days until he was removed from the tree. There are several other ways in which Judas’ hanging could have caused a very bloody scene but for the sake of the readers' stomach I will spare. Finally there is one more question posed in this topic, and that is concerning Matthew’s quote of Jeremiah’s prophecy. "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'" The closest quote of this prophecy is found in Zechariah "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter'-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter."-Zechariah 11:12-13. However this is still far from an exact quote. What’s the deal? Well, the prophets not only wrote their prophecies, they spoke them also, to the people of Israel. It would have been possible for Matthew to know of a prophecy of Jeremiah that was not exactly written as he quoted (maybe passed down by tradition). But we do see the general idea of this prophecy in passages such as Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9. Zechariah could have possibly heard some of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning Judas and wrote it down as he did. Or another possible explanation is, Matthew, knowing the three prophetic passages above were on the same subject, combined them to show the complete fulfillment of the prophecies of Judas. This makes sense in light of Isaiah 28:10, which says that the word of the Lord is told "a little here, a little there." But if anyone doesn’t want to accept these ideas consider what Matthew Henry in his commentary on the Bible says concerning this:
As for an exact explanation of Matthew’s quote I cannot say for sure, but people who pick on this small phrase are missing something much greater. No matter who spoke or wrote this prophecy, it was inspired by God. They fail to see that the account in Matthew 27 tells of the fulfillment of a prophecy almost half a century old! Yet this particular one is still young among many of the prophecies of our Lord’s coming. The information gathered and presented above, reconciling the two accounts of Judas Iscariot’s death, I don’t consider absolute. While the ideas presented are simple to conceive and plainly obvious, there are plenty of other explanations that God may reveal in time. |
Kevin Beckman - April 16, 2006 04:03 AM (GMT)
Kevin Beckman - April 16, 2006 02:24 PM (GMT)
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/16/stories...41607081400.htm
I guess the pope is trying to kill this before it goes too far.
I guess the pope is trying to kill this before it goes too far.
Deltasix - April 16, 2006 02:56 PM (GMT)
Yeah, that was the headline on Yahoo yesterday that got me thinking about this whole issue.
psycholopher - April 21, 2006 07:45 PM (GMT)
My brother brought up an interesting point, and that was: even though the Gospel of Judas may not be theologically relevant to most Christians, or historically relevant to anyone else, perhaps something redeeming that can be drawn from it is a compassion/forgiveness of Judas. Wouldn't forgiving Judas be a rather Christian thing to do?
Deltasix - April 21, 2006 07:58 PM (GMT)
I would say that it is somthing one HAS to do. Besides, did Judas really have a choice, would not have the presense of Jesus been for naught if he didn't go out quite like that?
I think its like eatting from the tree of knowledge, a sin that had to be done for us to progress, and that was set up for us to do.
I think its like eatting from the tree of knowledge, a sin that had to be done for us to progress, and that was set up for us to do.
Keys - April 22, 2006 10:12 AM (GMT)
Well a death by natural causes or suicide wasn't exactly gonna get the job that was purposed done, so I never really blamed him personally. It could have been anyone who would have played the role. He was unfortunately was eagerest.
Zairik - April 22, 2006 11:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Keys @ Apr 22 2006, 06:12 AM) |
| Well a death by natural causes or suicide wasn't exactly gonna get the job that was purposed done, so I never really blamed him personally. It could have been anyone who would have played the role. He was unfortunately was eagerest. |
Peter denied him three times. Bad, eh? He still repented, and made it right.
Judas decided for himself that he couldn't be forgiven, but that's far from the truth.
Peter chose to come back, Judas didn't.
Had Judas asked for forgiveness, I believe he would have been forgiven.
However, suicide isn't a good way to seal your fate.
psycholopher - April 24, 2006 04:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Peter chose to come back, Judas didn't. |
When did Peter choose to come back? The next time he sees Jesus, he's hiding in the room with all the other disciples. And when Peter and Jesus finally do meet up again, Peter doesn't ask forgiveness--Jesus grants it freely.
Can/should Christians forgive Judas?
Zairik - May 7, 2006 07:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (psycholopher @ Apr 24 2006, 12:45 PM) | ||
When did Peter choose to come back? The next time he sees Jesus, he's hiding in the room with all the other disciples. And when Peter and Jesus finally do meet up again, Peter doesn't ask forgiveness--Jesus grants it freely. Can/should Christians forgive Judas? |
Are you saying Peter didn't get forgiveness?
Jesus grants it freely to those who ask.
Judas wasn't seeking forgiveness, he just felt guilt.
psycholopher - May 11, 2006 06:28 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Are you saying Peter didn't get forgiveness? Jesus grants it freely to those who ask. |
I'm saying that there's no evidence that Peter asked for it.
| QUOTE |
| Judas wasn't seeking forgiveness, he just felt guilt. |
How do you know?
Zairik - May 11, 2006 06:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (psycholopher @ May 11 2006, 02:28 PM) | ||||
I'm saying that there's no evidence that Peter asked for it.
How do you know? |
-You want me to find evidence that Peter didn't die without asking for forgiveness?
-He commited suicide, you don't commit suicide and go to heaven. If he asked for forgiveness and commited suicide, that still makes no sense. Also, if he didn't feel guilt, why would he give the money back?
psycholopher - May 11, 2006 06:56 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| -You want me to find evidence that Peter didn't die without asking forgiveness? |
No, I'm saying that there's no evidence that Peter asked for forgiveness before Jesus gave it to him. There's only that scene in John where Jesus asks him three times if he loves Him. But there is no evidence in the Bible where Peter says, "Jesus, I'm sorry for betraying you." And yet, it seems evident to me that Jesus forgave him anyway.
| QUOTE |
| -He commited suicide, you don't commit suicide can go to heaven. If he asked for forgiveness and commited suicide, that still makes no sense. Also, if he didn't feel guilt, why would he give the money back? |
I know that he felt guilty. What I don't know is whether or not he asked for forgiveness. And what both of us don't know is whether or not Jesus forgave him.
Zairik - May 13, 2006 07:13 PM (GMT)
-Jesus will forgive, but you have to ask for it. The requirement is ask, and you will receive. But what I don't understand is why you would get hung up on this. You don't believe Peter asked for forgiveness because there isn't a specific scripture where Peter says "Jesus, I ask you for forgiveness"?
-I don't understand your logic. Had he asked for forgiveness, why would he commit suicide?
-I don't understand your logic. Had he asked for forgiveness, why would he commit suicide?