Talk:Gospel of Judas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religious texts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Former featured article candidate 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Athanasius (mis)quote =[edit]

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: [1] CCEL

[2] (includes the Greek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Carbon Date =1st half of 4th, not 280[edit]

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 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Useless as scripture, but anthropologically...[edit]

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?

-- (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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.'

What happened to 'fair and balanced' i mean 'unbiased information'? Dave 07:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talkcontribs)

Uniqueness of Codex / Controversies - moving some content[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Islamic Reference[edit]

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 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gnosticism and the GOJ[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Eight Days to Live[edit]

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)

Plug removed[edit]

somewhat misleading edit summary In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone check this for OR please[edit]

diff Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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)


Is this a mistake for 'pro-Nicene'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaky terminology[edit]

"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[edit]

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)