Talk:Gospel of Judas
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Religious texts||(Rated Start-class)|
|Gospel of Judas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
- 1 Athanasius (mis)quote =
- 2 Carbon Date =1st half of 4th, not 280
- 3 Useless as scripture, but anthropologically...
- 4 Uniqueness of Codex / Controversies - moving some content
- 5 Summary of contents
- 6 Purported?
- 7 Islamic Reference
- 8 Gnosticism and the GOJ
- 9 Eight Days to Live
- 10 Plug removed
- 11 Can someone check this for OR please
- 12 proto-Nicene
- 13 Shaky terminology
- 14 No scholar has yet interpreted the Gospel of Judas correctly
- 15 Editing out know-nothing scholarly commentary
- 16 What is appropriate sourced material?
- 17 Formatting in § Content :: Overview
- 18 External links modified
Athanasius (mis)quote =
Many websites quote Athanasius of saying (in his 39th Festal or Easter letter, dated AD 367) "cleanse the church from all defilement." However in the letter itself I could not find this phrase. If Athanasius said it, it must be from some other work, and so should be removed from the article, as if it is evidence of a conspiracy spearheaded by the bishop to destroy copies of the Gospel of Judas.
Links:  CCEL
Carbon Date =1st half of 4th, not 280
I am not interested in debating the accuracy of Carbon dating, but I would point out the the Nat Geogr dating done in 2004/5 registered the document to the first half of the fourth century with the last decades of the third a possibility. It should not read 280. Cf. Kasser etal., The Gospel of Judas, 184; Kasser, Wurst etal., The Gospel of Judas:Critical Edition, 27.Christian Askeland (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Since nobody has disagreed, I am going to change the date to reflect what is in the critical editions.Christian Askeland (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I am seeing on the Nat. Geogr. website that the carbon dating is to 220-240. I still want to to go with the scholarly printed editions which I believe are taking into account the script and external evidence. I think that the best best is to reword the dating statement to put it in line with the scholarly, published materials.Christian Askeland (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Gospel of Judas DVD produced by NGC from 2006 has two versions of the statement. The first one is the "plus or minus 50 years" (not 60) quote (as in this article) in the actual program. In the supplementary materials it has the 220-240 date range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Useless as scripture, but anthropologically...
This document is interesting, if authentic, for several reasons.
Primarily, it is noteworthy that, before the first translation of this text, the contemporary understanding of Judas Iscariot, especially among those seeking an adult-oriented understanding of the story of the Passion (like Scorsese) had already reached this conclusion about the ambiguous nature of Judas in the story. On the one hand, the scripture says that Jesus was betrayed. On the other hand it says that Jesus both foresaw his own "betrayal", did nothing to prevent it, very likely instigated it intentionally, and that it was necessary for him to fulfill his purpose for living. A person with an IQ above room temperature cannot reconcile these facts, because they are foundationally irreconcilable.
So what this text shows is that even in the late 2nd century AD this flaw in the story was already understood and was already being picked apart by critics who saw the orthodox party line as childish and implausible.
Another reason it is interesting is the note that Judas Iscariot would even have apologists in the 2nd century AD. Why would he? Why should he?
You should think before you speak. First, there are actual modern Gnostics here, people who might choose to believe or not believe this gospel. Second, you're (apparrently) confusing the classical Christian gospels with the Gospel of Judas, which should not be taken as Christian; especially this one. Third, this is not a place to discuss the legitimacy of the gospel itself, its containments, or your own personal opinions on it. Its a place to discuss revisions, edits, errors, suggestions for the article, and so forth. -KriticKill (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. First paragraph: 'conversations between Judas and Jesus Christ,' really? Not 'Jesus of Nazareth?' Because his name wasn't jesus christ, his name was never 'jesus christ,' so i'm not cursing or taking the lord's name in vain when I say 'jesus christ' because his name was never 'jesus christ.'
Uniqueness of Codex / Controversies - moving some content
I am moving the last 3 paragraphs from under "The Uniqueness..." to heading "Content" subheading "Ancient Controversy" sub-sub-heading "The Gospel of Judas itself attacking other beliefs". This seems to be a more logical place, as it obviously is what the paragraphs describe, and as it has nothing to do with manuscriptal uniqeuness. If somebody gives good reasons, I dont mind them reverting my change. --QHLT (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) As there is no reason given for partly reverting this change, I have undone the reverting. I believe it is just me having not yet learnt the use of "in use" tag. :) --QHLT (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Summary of contents
I've been monitoring the discussion on this page for a couple of days now (despite the fact that it has mostly died off), and I just noticed that the article does not contain an actual summary of the gospel itself. I'll be working on putting together a section in the next couple of days that should highlight the major points. Crop and edit at will. -KriticKill (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why this Gospel says "purported", while others do not. Is it because it is Gnostic? Is it because the history of it cannot be determined, or something else. I note for example that the Gospel of Luke does not say "purported." Thanks Jimaginator (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this might spark some anger among the Christian users, but I think its fair to mention how the Gospel of Judas coincides in many ways to the Islamic point of view of the death of Jesus.
In the Islamic tradition, Jesus is not crucified, but taken to heaven by God before anybody can lay a hand on him, whereas his betrayer is given Jesus's appearance and he is the one who is tortured and crucified.
This coincides with several things, including why the Gospel does not mention the crucifiction and just stops dead right before it, as well as how Jesus mentions to Judas that he will have to go through pain in order to enter the Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all a misunderstanding of mystic teaching. The sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas isn't Jesus, but Judas. (He is a stand-in here, as in the canon, for James the Just, the real Master of the time, whom the the early church wanted hidden.) The scholars investigating G of J are nearly all Christians (orthodox) not Gnostics or Mystics. I am a Mystic (Radha Soami Beas Satsangi). I practice what the Gnostics taught. We will never be allowed to know the real teachings of the Gospel of Judas by relying on so-called 'scholars'!Sahansdal (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Gnosticism and the GOJ
After reading Pagel's and King's 2007 long essay on the GOJ, I have amended certain parts of this article to reflect current thinking on 'Gnosticism' i.e. before so-called Gnsotic texts were discovered, scholars had nothing to go on except reports in the works of church fathers who were hostile towards Gnosticism. Based on analyses of texts such as the Nag Hamadi scrolls, some scholars such as P and K argue that Gnosticism was invented by church fathers (in reality, the Christians who didn't believe in the ideas enshrined in the Nicene creed were not as monolithic or simplistic as the church fathers claimed). So, I think 'non-Nicenean' is a better term to describe these other traditions of Christianity since it does not presuppose unity of thought, as the word 'Gnosticism' does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccohomo (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Eight Days to Live
I'm removing this paragraph from the article, where it appeared as a block quote without a citation.
Interestingly enough Iris Johansen, the US Author, published a book called "Eight Days to Live" that incorporates as part of the plot a group of followers of the notion that Judas Iscariot only did what the Lord wanted him to do since Jesus had to die on the Cross so the Resurrection could become a reality. She also alludes to the fact that Judas refused to accept the 30 shekels that he was given to betray Jesus and the the High Priest then took the Shekels of Tyre back and ended up purchasing a plot of land North of Jerusalem (that Tourist Guides actually take visitors to the area to) and referred to it a the "Field of Blood". Whether there is any truth to this is not known to me and more contributions are needed to either substantiate or reject this. The book was published by St. Martin's Press, 2010.
The whole later part of this article gets a bit flaky and weird in my opinion, but this really seems to come out of nowehere, and doesn't seem to belong in the section. Bitbut (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can someone check this for OR please
- I've removed all of the material added by that editor. Robert Wahler is a self-published author thus failing WP:RS unless he can be shown to be a recongised expert on the subject - which he isn't. He is a "life-long follower of the teachings of a true mystic Master, Maharaj Charan Singh." Any material based on this author should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
"the codex originally contained 31 pages, with writing on both sides; however, when it came to the market in 1999, only 13 pages remained"
Huh? The leaves of a codex are known as "leaves"; the two sides of a leaf are each known as a "page". Thus, a page has only one side and cannot have "writing on both sides". Combirom2 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think what they meant is that the pages are on the same FOLIO. A folio is a single sheet, folded in the middle, with four 'pages', two on each side of the folio. So, you have one single sheet folio, 62 pages -- 31 'pages' (or "leaves") written on front and back (as described above), but only '13', or 26 normal "pages" remaining. Sahansdal (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No scholar has yet interpreted the Gospel of Judas correctly
There is so much to say about this new discovery, its importance cannot be overstated. Firstly, its authenticity is unquestioned. Secondly, its "use as scripture" isn't why it is important. "Scripture" is an artificial man-made designation. The reason it is important is what it says about the New Testament. JUDAS is the sacrifice, NOT JESUS. No scholar studying it knows this. I know because I am a practicing Mystic ("Gnostic", if you are first century). I can explain everything not only in this text, including who 'Judas' really is, but also how it reflects why the New Testament reads as it does in the Gospels. Any thoughts on how to bring this about? What a coup that would be for Wiki!I have contacted most of these scholars personally. They don't seem to want to know how they have all gone chasing up a tree with no quarry in it. The problem is their orthodox bias has blinded them to the gnostic interpretation of the text. Jesus is answering Judas' question, "What will those who have been baptized in your name DO?" when he says, "You will sacrifice the man who bears me." That's gnostic self-sacrifice -- the origin, I am certain, of the canonical inversion known as "the Betrayal". The idea was to hide that there was a mystic successor (probably to John the Baptist, not 'Jesus' -- but that is a whole different problem). That successor is James the Just. I have a book on this, but I was rightly edited out of commenting because it is personal opinion. This being a talk page, it seems appropriate here to talk about it and I hope to instigate debate on how to present the correct interpretation without scholarly support. We are not likely to get it! The biblical scholars are nearly all orthodox Christian! I can't so far get National Geographic to revisit the subject. But Terry Garcia did say "interesting email" when I explained how they got it wrong. They made their millions. That was their interest apparently -- not the truth. Sahansdal (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Editing out know-nothing scholarly commentary
I have been informed that the Talk Page is where major changes should begin. I am a practicing Mystic (today's 'Gnostic'). I follow the teachings of a modern Mystic Apept, Maharaj Charan Singh (1918-1990), also a published author  and University educated lawyer. Since no scholar currently commenting on the Gospel of Judas understands the first thing about Gnosticism, quite literally (that Gnostics or Mystics practice self-sacrifice, not the sacrifice of their Masters!) it remains up to us who practice it to correct their mistaken notions. There is much to do. I intend to start with the Amy Jill Levine comment in the paragraph I just edited. If I see no discussion here on this recent change, and it is reverted, I will again make the change and invite in my contribution comment a fresh discussion on this most important document. Hopefully, Wiki editors will be more interested in getting the truth nailed down on this than the so-called scholars have been so far. Only Robert Eisenman, whom I know personally, has any comprehension of the preeminent position of James the Just in the first century, and that 'Judas' was invented to cover him up. He knows that James the Just was more important than 'Jesus', whoever that was, and unlike Jesus is attested historically (Josephus, Hegesippus, Epiphanius). All he lacks is an understanding of mystic Mastership, and living Masters . I can provide that understanding to whomever wants to learn about them. Sahansdal (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Science of the Soul.org
- Please see WP:Verifiability. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it (this principle was previously expressed on this policy page as 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth')." In other words, Wiki editors are not "more interested in getting the truth nailed down on this than the so-called scholars have been so far", and it is not "up to you to correct their mistaken notions." You may add the views of people such as Eisenman (as long as you cite them properly i.e. book title and page number) but you may not give them undue weight, you may not substitute a minority view for a mainstream view as you did here and you may not delete sourced content, as you did here and here, because you don't think the cited author "understands the first thing about Gnosticism". Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I accept these rules. But this is GNOSTICISM, which isn't a field subject to intellectual speculation, which is all the peer-reviewed so-called "scholarship" is so far. Dr. Robert Eisenman is the only 'peer reviewed' scholar who has touched on the real interpretation of this text, and then only indirectly from his analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocrypha. I can cite his opinion that 'Judas' was James in Acts 1, but that is only peripheral to the fact that 'Judas' is a cover everywhere for James, including all ancient sources. Where does Wiki have room for the truly novel ideas? Bertrand Russell quote: “Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.” If Wiki is a search for the truth, I'm in. If it is only a roundup of bad ideas of ignorant people, it isn't much use as I see it. "Mystic [aka, 'Gnostic'] teaching is 'caught' - not taught". - Maharaj Charan Singh.Sahansdal (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I take it you didn't read WP:Verifiability, then. Wikipedia does not have room for the truly novel ideas. They're known on Wikipedia as original research, and original research is against policy. Wikipedia is not a search for the truth. It is an encyclopedia. Therefore it is not going to be of use to you. You need to find another forum. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Ha, you remind me of the scholars I take exception to, Scolaire. Why are you so adversarial? Why not help me to find a way to make Wiki better by understanding this important entry and helping me to find acceptable sources? Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines From the policy page: Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken. Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.
If I can show that there is no "expert" who has a grasp of this subject, then a countering position should not only be allowed, but encouraged, even if it lacks the usual "verifiability". I wish there were scholars who understood this topic, but there aren't any! If you cite Jenott, then I know you are a serious student of Gnostic thought. His book isn't cheap, even though a paperback. I have it. Jenott is wrong, as are all the rest.
Jesus is answering Judas' QUESTION, 55.23: "What will those sacrificed in your Name [Word] do?" No answer is offered until 56.20-21, and "You will exceed them all for you will sacrifice the man that bears me". He tells Judas that "it will wipe out the entire race of the earthly man Adam", 55.5-6, "Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured", 56.7-8, then "no hand of a mortal human will fall upon me", 56.10-11, and "those who offer sacrifices to Saklas will [die]", 55.13-14. Only THEN does Jesus fully answer his question, "What will those baptized in your Name DO?" They will (he Judas, will, as it is singular in the text) "sacrifice *the man* that bears me" -- HIM Judas -- not Jesus. The sacrifice is spiritual, it is of the self. Gnostics sacrificed SELF. This dynamic is so widely known in Mystic teaching that it is citable in nearly any mystic text. On Scribd, for example: https://www.scribd.com/doc/30321660/Julian-Johnson-The-Path-of-the-Masters "Peer-review" in this field would mean another Master, not another scholar. They are the only ones to understand Gnosis, because they experience it daily.
Just because all scholars are so mesmerized by incorrect orthodox teaching (no different now than in the first century) is no reason for us to be. A whole pile of Christian-educated scholars isn't the equal of one mystic Master writing about Gnostic teaching: "Die to Live" by Charan Singh (http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-011-0.htm) Sahansdal (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- See, "A whole pile of Christian-educated scholars isn't the equal of one mystic Master writing about Gnostic teaching" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Writing 500-word posts doesn't get around that. Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You are aware of the schism WITHIN the scholarly cabal writing on this? Revisionist versus consensus scholars? "Bad" versus "good" Judas?
Scholars are divided on the interpretation of the text. The first modern publication of the gospel contended that the text portrays Judas in a positive light, while other scholars have asserted that Judas is presented negatively. There is no consensus on how Judas is characterized in this gospel 
Did you not read what I said about the context of "sacrifice the man that bears me"? If I am right (and I am) that this is in answer to a question in context of a Master-in-training dialogue, I can sway the consensus: IF we have a Wikipedia-like discussion of the matter. All that is needed is reading with a little understanding of Gnosticism, something not yet in evidence. Judas will "rule" the others (46.23). Does that sound like a disgraced traitor? No one is betrayed in the narrative section, only the coda at the end -- the very last line -- which is probably a sop. The reason Judas is told by Jesus that he will not "ascend" is because he will "sacrifice the man that bears" his Master -- "the man" means HIMSELF. Tell me where you stand, and why you are not more helpful to a minority view. I'm sure you have more Wiki experience than I. So, help me! Or do you not want to? From The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers." Is it because this line of investigation might weaken your own faith? There is provision within the rules and policies of Wikipedia for informed discussion and even rule-breaking. Don't be fooled like the scholars. Others, please? Again, no one will ever understand this text until informed dissent is heard. There are better-informed 'experts' than the religious studies community. Some have written extensively on self-sacrifice in mystic teaching, but not specifically about this text. So, how to introduce their expertise? What is Wikipedia really about, anyway?Sahansdal (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Judas will "rule" the others (46.23). Does that sound like a disgraced traitor? There is no traitor Judas in the Gnostic version. No one is betrayed in the narrative section, only the coda at the end -- the very last line -- which is probably a sop. The reason Judas is told by Jesus that he will not "ascend" is because he will "sacrifice the man that bears" his Master -- "the man" means HIMSELF. Tell me where you stand, and why you are not more helpful to a minority view. I'm sure you have more Wiki experience than I. So, help me! Or do you not want to? From The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers." Is it because this line of investigation might weaken your own faith? There is provision within the rules and policies of Wikipedia for informed discussion and even rule-breaking. Don't be fooled like the scholars. Others, please? Again, no one will ever understand this text until informed dissent is heard. There are better-informed 'experts' than the religious studies community. Some have written extensively on self-sacrifice in mystic teaching, but not specifically about this text. So, how to introduce their expertise? What is Wikipedia really about, anyway?Sahansdal (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, Scolaire's revert April 8th of my deletion: "which relates the story of Jesus's death from the viewpoint of Judas." under 'Background' reinstalls a flat-out falsehood about the text of the Gospel of Judas. The "man that bears me" is JUDAS, not Jesus! Maybe someone will someday pick up a real book of Gnosticism and back me up on this. One can hope, can't they? (Start here: Science of the Soul.org) Sahansdal (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What is appropriate sourced material?
Skyerise undid my deletion of the paragraph by Andre Gagne about "Apophasis" meaning "denial." Gagne is the ONLY 'scholar' to hold this silly view. The Greek loanword 'apophasis' doesn't mean "denial." It means "not said." Look it up. There is a lot of sourced material on the Gospel of Judas available from many different scholars. It is my view that editors have a responsibility to weed out the provably unhelpful. Skyerise, why is this erroneous view so important to you or to this article? Please comment. If you can't defend your reinstating it, please remove it.Sahansdal (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Formatting in § Content :: Overview
In the overview section of the article (see here), there are [square brackets] around several words. Presumably this indicates that they're filling in omitted words, but they don't seem to be in a quote and thus look out of place. Hppavilion1 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- There were two, in one sentence. It was a quote. I've added quotation marks. Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Judas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109144928/http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247 to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.