Heard of the "Gospel of Judas"?

Question

Do a search for it or look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

It basically says; "According to the canonical Gospels, Judas betrayed Jesus to the Jewish authorities, who then turned him over to the Roman authorities by whom he was crucified. The Gospel of Judas interprets this act positively, as one performed in obedience to the instructions of Jesus, rather than as a betrayal."

Now, what do you think? For me it's interesting, but doesn't affect my belief. BTW, this is very recent.

Although I do believe in the Bible, how can you call it complete when it's been translated many times, and thus has more holes then the moon has craters.

So Mathew, Mark, Luke and John where there when Christ was born? No. Their writings could be the same as Judas' in that some one else found them and abridged them, or told to someone else to write things down, who knows? Besides, 200 years after Christ, the church was in turmoil because there was no leader. Struggling young (inexperianced) clergy were just putting the Bible together; but, of course they would omit something like this. Plus, FYI, each record (gospel) has a different account as to how the resurrection took place, as a small example. They only agree on time, why, and that he was resurrected. Not, who, who, or where he appeared. And it has been proven that some words have been grossly miss-translated.

Answer 1

If true, and I personally see no reason to doubt it, it certainly casts a new light on Judas. The document makes for interesting reading, but I can bet that most so-called Christians here won't bother to look at the article you cited above. National Geographic did a cover story on it some months ago, and I raced out to get it, being a Christian who is interested in that sort of thing. You know, open minded? I found it fascinating, just like when I realized that the man who "made" the Bible, Irenaeus of Lyons, picked and chose what he felt it should contain... Could this be something that was left out, in an attempt to help shape the faith in the direction he wanted?

Answer 2

We have early hebrew versions of the old testament and early greek versions of the new testament. Our english translation of the old testament is translated from those early hebrew versions. Our english translation of the new testament is a translation from those early greek versions. Although there were other versions in between, we don't use those to translate. We go back to the earliest copies. There's really only one translation. You don't lose anything in a translation. If there's a word in hebrew that has no equivalent in english, you just use a number of words to describe that one word until you get the same effect. So i'm not sure what you are talking about when you say translations. Are you talking about the different versions of the bible on the market today. I have about 50 different versions on my computer. I also have technology where you can take a number of verses and compare those verses in all 50 bibles. I can tell you for a fact, they all say the same thing. They just say the same thing in a little different way and most of the time they say the same thing, PERIOD, with no difference.
Incidently, the gospel of judas was a gnostic gospel written 200 years after Christ died. The early church rejected it as heretical. They were on the scene. They knew what was real and what wasn't. Someone who came 200 years after Christ was crucified would know as little as I know about the personal life of George Washington. Actually, he would know much less. I can read history books and watch the history channel and go on the computer and punch in George Washington on my search engine and get a million hits. There were no such educational helps back in those days whereby you could research Christ. That's why Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the only gospels the early church allowed in the bible. They were there on the scene. They were either eye witnesses or they got it from an eye-eitness. They know what happened.

Answer 3

The Gnostic writings had their own agenda; as did the writers of the synoptic gospels , the writings of Paul, the writer of the Gospel of John, the writers of the "apocrypha"...
Each school of thought/each sect of christian believers had their own interpretations to justify their belief, to further the credibility of their belief, to give "historical" proof of the origin/validity of their "religion".....


Not very recent , really.....the Gnostic gospels, the Nag Hammadi writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocryphal writings, ....have been around for some decades, now...it is true that much of it was accessible only to a few biblical, anthropological, archaeological scholars for a time...but all these sources are readily available today.

For a different and a very interesting view...
read "James, the brother of Jesus" by Eisenman

Answer 4

Heard of it. False. It was written hundreds of years after the canonical New Testament scriptures. It is fiction.

The existing manuscript was radiocarbon dated to be "between the third and fourth century" according to Timothy Jull, a carbon-dating expert at the University of Arizona's physics centre. Only sections of papyrus with no text were carbon dated.

For comparison, the oldest fragment of the canonical Gospel of John is in the John Rylands Library and dates from year 75 to 130.

How could the Gospel of Judas be genuine if it wasn't written until the 3rd or 4th Centuries and everyone who it mentions, including the writer, has been dead a few hundred years?

Answer 5

Before Jesus was crucified, the belief of his teaching was not as great after he was crucified.
His followings was greatly increase after his Resurrection. So maybe the Gospel of Judas is for his Resurrection to bring attention to his teaching.

Answer 6

Interesting...if (and only if) these texts are proven to be authentic (didn't say factual, just authentic), it would be nice to see them placed into the Bible. I don't believe that the Bible is perfect, and would love to see some of the lost texts added.

I have to wonder about the "thirty pieces of silver" thing though...didn't the Bible say something about Judas getting paid and then wanting to return the money later? That wouldn't make sense in light of this new perspective.

Answer 7

I guess everyone has to decide whether or not to accept the Bible as God's Word or not. If you coose not to do that, you have every right. But in my opinion you will be wrong.

Answer 8

"Positive" meaning that Judas was only fulfilling the prophesy concerning Jesus' betrayal and subsequent torturous sentence, I'm assuming.

If this were a positive thing, they why would Judas then go and hang himself? Doesn't square, know what I mean?

Answer 9

Written about 300 AD and denounced then in about 350AD

Answer 10

did not christ say the .12. of you i choose and one of you is a devil. he was talking about.juduas. so how could anyone even think this is gospel. in my opion?