The Gospel of Judas
Posted on April 11th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized category 
I meant to get to this subject last week but have been swamped at work. Nevertheless, since this blog has a lot of intelligent, theologically trained readers, I am curiuous what they think of this new Book of Judas.
Key quote:
The text's existence has been known since it was denounced as heresy by the bishop of Lyon in A.D. 180, but its contents had remained an almost total mystery. Unlike the four gospels of the New Testament, it describes conversations between Jesus and Judas Iscariot during the week before Passover in which Jesus tells Judas "secrets no other person has ever seen."
The other apostles pray to a lesser God, Jesus says, and he reveals to Judas the "mysteries of the kingdom" of the true God. He asks Judas to help him return to the kingdom, but to do so, Judas must help him abandon his mortal flesh: "You will sacrifice the man that clothes me," Jesus tells Judas, and acknowledges that Judas "will be cursed by the other generations."
There is also this opinion from Larry Hurtado in Slate Magazine:
The Gospel of Judas has genuine historical value—as one of several bits of evidence showing the diversity of early Christianity, like the writings of such figures as Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in about 180 A.D. The text's depiction of Judas as the disciple to whom Jesus gave unique mystical revelations is not itself really unique. It somewhat resembles the portrayal of Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas. Nor is there evidence that the Gospel of Judas ever enjoyed much popularity as an alternative to the canon of the New Testament or was considered for inclusion in that canon. This text reflects a profoundly elitist viewpoint, claiming a specially conveyed revelation of religious truths withheld from ordinary Christians and their leaders.
I find the process of cannonizing the Bible fascinating. And to me The Gospel of Judas is just more proof that Christ exists, and yet at the same time, maybe we should not take the Bible literally.
RSS feed for posts
April 11th, 2006 at 9:33 am
What did Judas say about tithing?
April 11th, 2006 at 9:53 am
I find it interesting that these reports always seem to pop up right before Easter.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Excluded from the canon was simple discernment … the book allegedly records Jesus conversations with Judas during the last week of their lives (Judas hanged himself as soon as he realized he’d ‘betrayed innocent blood’ per Matthew 27:3-5).
For the book to exist / be authentic, either Judas blabbed the ’secrets no other person has ever seen’ thereby proving he was un-trustworthy and someone else wrote the book after Judas death, or, Judas wrote the book himself in less than a week.
Maybe Judas had a secretary, or a laptop?
April 11th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
If it is 2nd-century original, that rules out Judas writing it and means that it wouldn’t have been written for at least 70 years after Judas died. At face value, it seems like a fabrication from the Gnostics.
If the disciples prayed to a “lesser God”, then that would mean that we (meaning Bible believing Christians) are praying to a lesser god and would go against everything Jesus taught. Why would Jesus teach about there being only one true God and then be having his disciples praying to a lesser (i.e. false) god. It makes no sense.
That’s my .02!
April 11th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Most of the Bible makes no sense… if you are a “rational” person ie. Not Insane!
That’s my .02
just boggles my mind why people care so much about the book and not so much about the New Testament message in real everyday life (day to day human interaction)
April 12th, 2006 at 8:08 am
History will show that Judas’ road to destruction, his eventual moral collapse and infamous betrayal, begin the very moment he skipped a tithe to buy a new pair of sandals for himself.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Crap, I did that once too.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
If they had a stock market in Jesus day, I’m sure Judas would’ve made a KILLING.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:49 am
From what I understand, many of the non-canonical gospels were not written by the person named in the title. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary - neither Thomas or Mary wrote these, it’s just whoever did write them tended to favor that particular character, or identify with them. It also may have been a way to grant the document some legitimacy, at least at face value. The same seems to be true for the Gospel of Judas.
Anyway, interesting discovery. I read a good book about the Gospel of Thomas awhile back, called Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels. I recommend it, though I disagree with her in some aspects, especially her treatment of the Gospel of John.
December 23rd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I am not sure where this post goes (my first time here) but I am trying to reach larry taylor, as he was a teacher of mine some years ago, any help would be greatly appreciated
December 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
ROTFLMAO!
December 25th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
LOL!
Damned to Hell for all eternity for not titheing.
Where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah, a lot of churches.
December 29th, 2006 at 4:59 am
i love it… it throws a wrench into the mix.
the bible is sooo filtered by the church. here is something that has not been intentionally been altered…
December 30th, 2006 at 8:54 am
When it comes to the subject of “canonization,” it seems to me we have made a significant “leap of faith” I’m not so sure is warranted, as relates to trusting the Church councils.
While I have no problem with the books they included in the canon, I’m highly suspicious that the councils from 325 AD and later, being as bought out by the politico/religious system as they were, failed to apply a consistent integrity in their choices of which books to include in the canon.
One, perhaps glaring, example might be 1st Enoch. Many, very strong scholars, have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church tossed this book to the rubbish pile, not because it lacked the canonical flavor and acceptance of the early Church, but because it clearly exposes and denounces the whole worship of angels thing, and one doesn’t need to be much of a scholar to know that the Catholic Church, early on, developed a worship of both dead saints and angels.
I’m not qualified to say whether 1st Enoch should have been included in the canon, but you might want to take a read: www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html and see what you think. You might be pleasantly surprised by the powerful truths contained in it.
In case you need a little help in deciding if it is a worthy book, here is a short treatment of its value: http://www.alienresistance.org/book_of_enoch.htm
It just may open up a whole field of interesting study for you!