The Gospel of Judas

[AxFactor]

here is a link to a very interesting article.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/[/url]

[Brother Adam]

What two theologians and a handfull of grad students here have basically said so far:

"The Catholic Church has long since dealt with the Gospel of Judas and rejected it as being authentic or inspired. The Church really just doesn't care about this 'development'. It isn't a development at all.

The media can go and have a good old time like they do with every 'shocking' religious thing and they will look like morons in the morning, as always. "

[Seven77]

its authentic...



authentically gnostic.

[avemaria40]

This sounds like something out of The Last Temptation of Christ

[Socrates]

Yes, gnosticism was around in the 4th Century, and it was solidly condemned by orthodox Christians.
Of course there are plenty of people today who would rather listen to that nonsense than the truth of the true Gospels as taught by His Church, just as there were then. There is nothing new under the sun.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 6 2006, 02:21 PM']Yes, gnosticism was around in the 4th Century, and it was solidly condemned by orthodox Christians.
Of course there are plenty of people today who would rather listen to that nonsense than the truth of the true Gospels as taught by His Church, just as there were then.  There is nothing new under the sun.
[right][snapback]937927[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"For those who won’t welcome Jesus, goodness becomes the dagger of judgment pointing at their evil hearts. It fills them with hatred. Authentic Christians are always counter-cultural and will always be d by the world. When Jesus sent the twelve on their first mission he warned them: “You will be d by all for my name’s sake” (Mt 10:22). " [i]Jim Seghers of Totus Tuus Ministries[/i]

I was reading this today and thought your comments meshed really nicely with his.

[White Knight]

Bad stuff.

[God's Errand Girl]

Just as ridiculous as the report I saw on the Today Show this morning. which purported that Jesus did not really walk on water; he walked on ice because the climate in those ancient times was vastly different.

[Paladin]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Apr 6 2006, 06:53 PM']Bad stuff.
[right][snapback]938058[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not bad, really, just silly. They've been thought of as silly since Iraeneus and before. They're interesting insofar as it'll tell us what 3rd century gnostics believed. They will provide no further knowledge of Christ, however, though that's exactly how MSM, DaVinci Code fans, and other weirdos will present it.

Fortunately, we have the fullness of Faith passed down from the Apostles and are solid enough not to believe this sort of fiction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That article doesn't try to reconcile the fact that Judas killed himself, at least in the canonical gosples. The article would have you believe Judas thought himself a hero or whatever, so why'd he do it. Maybe indirectly they want to imply the new finds have as much credibility as the canonical, i dunno.

[ironmonk]

I saw a few ads on TV for a show about it... "A new Gospel discovered"... how the media irks me with their sensationalistic lies.


[quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm[/url]

(2) Number of the Gospels

The name gospel, as designating a written account of Christ's words and deeds, has been, and is still, applied to a large number of narratives connected with Christ's life, which circulated both before and after the composition of our Third Gospel (cf. Luke 1:1-4). The titles of some fifty such works have come down to us, a fact which shows the intense interest which centred, at an early date, in the Person and work of Christ. it is only, however, in connexion with twenty of these "gospels" that some information has been preserved. Their names, as given by Harnack (Chronologie, I, 589 sqq.), are as follows: —

1-4. The Canonical Gospels.
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
[b]18.The Gospel of Judas. [/b]
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos.

...
(3) Chief Differences between Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels

From the outset, the four Gospels, the sacred character of which was thus recognized very early, differed in several respects from the numerous uncanonical Gospels which circulated during the first centuries of the Church. First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions. In the next place, they had an earlier origin than most of their apocryphal rivals, and indeed many of the latter productions were directly based on the canonical Gospels. A third feature in favour of our canonical records of Christ's life was the purity of their teachings, dogmatic and moral, over against the Jewish, Gnostic, or other heretical views with which not a few of the apocryphal gospels were tainted, and on account of which these unsound writings found favour among heretical bodies and, on the contrary, discredit in the eyes of Catholics. Lastly, and more particularly, the canonical Gospels were regarded as of Apostolic authority, two of them being ascribed to the Apostles St. Matthew and St. John, respectively, and two to St. Mark and St. Luke, the respective companions of St. Peter and St. Paul. Many other gospels indeed claimed Apostolic authority, but to none of them was this claim universally allowed in the early Church. The only apocryphal work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the "Gospel according to the Hebrews". It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel under the name of "The Gospel according to the Nazarenes", regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew. But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, it has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel, and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church.

[/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Apr 6 2006, 07:35 PM']That article doesn't try to reconcile the fact that Judas killed himself, at least in the canonical gosples. The article would have you believe Judas thought himself a hero or whatever, so why'd he do it. Maybe indirectly they want to imply the new finds have as much credibility as the canonical, i dunno.
[right][snapback]938231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gnostics didn't have to reconcile the fact that Judas killed himself. Those who believed in a strict form of predetermined historical epochs saw Judas as vindicated (and possibly praiseworthy) on account of the fact that it was only through his betrayal that Christ fulfilled certain prophecies.

You and I may think it stupid, but to the world-view of the time it was not that difficult to grasp.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[ironmonk]

Here is a new article from Rome...

[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247[/url]

Date: 2006-04-05

The "Gospel of Judas"

Interview With Father Thomas Williams, Theology Dean

ROME, APRIL 5, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The National Geographic Society has announced its intentions to publish an English translation of an ancient text called "The Gospel of Judas" later this month.

The 31-page manuscript, written in Coptic, purportedly surfaced in Geneva in 1983 and has only been translated now.

ZENIT asked Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance of the discovery.

Q: What is the "Gospel of Judas"?

Father Williams: Though the manuscript still must be authenticated, it likely represents a fourth- or fifth-century text, and is a copy of an earlier document produced by a Gnostic sect called the Cainites.

The document paints Judas Iscariot in a positive light, and describes him as obeying a divine ordinance in handing over Jesus to the authorities for the salvation of the world.

It may well be a copy of the "Gospel of Judas" referred to by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his work "Against the Heresies," written around A.D. 180.

Q: If authentic, what challenge would this document pose to traditional Christian belief? Will it "shake Christianity to its foundations" as some press releases have suggested?

Father Williams: Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity.

From the moment of their appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their incompatibility with the Christian faith.

The "Gospel of Judas" would be a document of this sort, which could have great historical value, since it contributes to our knowledge of the Gnostic movement, but it poses no direct challenge to Christianity.

Q: Is it true that the Church has tried to cover up this text and other apocryphal texts?

Father Williams: These are myths circulated by Dan Brown and other conspiracy theorists.

You can go to any Catholic bookstore and pick up a copy of the Gnostic gospels. Christians may not believe them to be true, but there is no attempt to hide them.

Q: But doesn't an early document of this sort rival orthodox Christian sources, such as the four canonical Gospels?

Father Williams: Remember that Gnosticism arose in the middle of the second century, and the "Gospel of Judas," if authentic, probably dates back to the mid- to late second century.

To put a historical perspective on things, that would be like you or me writing a text now on the American Civil War and having that text later used as a primary historical source on the war. The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the way at least two of the canonical Gospels were.

Q: Why would the leaders of the Gnostic movement have been interested in Judas?

Father Williams: One of the major differences between Gnostic belief and that of Christianity concerns the origins of evil in the universe.

Christians believe that a good God created a good world, and that through the abuse of free will, sin and corruption entered the world and produced disorder and suffering.

The Gnostics blamed God for the evil in the world and claimed that he created the world in a disordered and flawed way. Thus they champion the rehabilitation of Old Testament figures such as Cain, who killed his brother Abel, and Esau, the elder brother of Jacob, who sold his birthright for a plate of pottage.

Judas fits perfectly into the Gnostic agenda of showing that God intends evil for the world.

Q: But wasn't Judas' betrayal a necessary part of God's plan, as this text suggests?

Father Williams: Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world.

In his last published book, Pope John Paul II eloquently reflected on how God continues to bring good out of even the worst evil that man can produce.

That doesn't mean, however, that God intends for us to do evil, or that he intended for Judas to betray Jesus. If it wasn't Judas, it would have been someone else. The authorities had already decided to put Jesus to death, and it was just a matter of time.

Q: What is the Church's position regarding Judas? Is it possible to "rehabilitate" him?

Father Williams: Though the Catholic Church has a canonization process by which it declares certain persons to be in heaven, as saints, it has no such process for declaring people to be condemned.

Historically, many have thought that Judas is probably in hell, because of Jesus' severe indictment of Judas: "It would be better for that man if he had never been born," as he says in Matthew 26:24. But even these words do not offer conclusive evidence regarding his fate.

In his 1994 book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," Pope John Paul II wrote that Jesus' words "do not allude for certain to eternal damnation."

Q: But if anyone deserves hell, wouldn't it be Judas?

Father Williams: Surely many people deserve hell, but we must remember that the mercy of God is infinitely greater than our wickedness.

Peter and Judas committed very similar faults: Peter denied Jesus three times, and Judas handed him over. And yet now Peter is remembered as a saint and Judas simply as the traitor.

The main difference between the two is not the nature or gravity of their sin, but rather their willingness to accept God's mercy. Peter wept for his sins, came back to Jesus, and was pardoned. The Gospel describes Judas as hanging himself in despair.

Q: Why is the "Gospel of Judas" arousing so much interest?

Father Williams: Such theories regarding Judas are certainly not new.

It's enough to remember the 1973 play "Jesus Christ Superstar," where Judas sings, "I have no thought at all about my own reward. I really didn't come here of my own accord," or Taylor Caldwell's 1977 novel "I, Judas."

The enormous economic success of "The Da Vinci Code" has undoubtedly stirred up the pot, and provided financial incentive for theories of this sort.

Michael Baigent, author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," now has a book out called "The Jesus Papers," which recycles the old story that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

And a newly released "scientific" study asserts that meteorological conditions could have been such that Jesus really walked on ice, when the Gospels say he walked on water.

Basically, for those who reject outright the possibility of miracles, any theory, outlandish as it may be, trumps Christian claims.

[Theoketos]

*Yawn*

[Desert Walker]

The following quote illustrates EXACTLY why the "gnostic gospels" were rejected by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Authority so many centuries ago.

[quote]"This ancient text [b]helps the modern world rediscover something that the early Christians knew firsthand[/b]," said Reverend Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois.

"In the early centuries of the Christian era there were [b]multiple sacred texts resulting from communities in various parts of the Mediterranean world trying to come to grips with the meaning of Jesus Christ for their lives[/b]." [/quote]

In other words, the early Christians were very familiar with confusion and debate about Jesus Christ and His teachings. The successors of the Apostles decided to take a shot at ending that confusion by codifying an official canon of Sacred Scripture: what most of us know as the Catholic Bible.

So I'm not quite sure what Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union, is getting at. Why do WE need to "understand" that the early Christians experienced confusion about Jesus??

We have our OWN confusions!

This is all a Satanic plot to create even MORE confusion!