The Gospel of Judas- The Hidden Story of the Betrayal of Christ
I remember seeing this on the cable TV. It does raise some interesting questions about the veracity of the accepted gospel stories. Religions based on faith, like Christianity won't be troubled by the surprising story in this ancient book. They will ignore it.
Gotta run out the door. Marking this to view later. Thanks.
Okay, I viewed these and the other ones you posted about, The Hidden Jesus.
What I enjoy, not so much that I think the Gospel of Judas or of anybody else is true, is that Christianity clearly has conflicting stories of their own roots. I am convinced that the original writers of the 4 Gospels (which slightly disagree with each other) wrote of a mythical Jesus of mythical times.
Iraneus and the Church chose the books that seemed most popular and told everyone to take them literally.
The Gospel of Judas as well all the other gospels not found in the Official Bible certainly give Christianity a more well rounded out perspective, maybe if they included that Gospel their may have been far less anti semitism in the world.
All sounds very nice, except it was written approximately AD 130–180, way after the canonical gospels. It's just another late gnostic fiction.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (popularly thought to be Essene) was led by leadership thought to be descendants of the "legitimate" high priest lineage which the Hasmoneans ousted.
In Gospel of Judas there is direct conflict with what we have presented to us in the NT.
I have some difficulty with this Essene scroll because it appears to set Jesus up as a suicidal martyr. And also because we have only a few crumbling fragments, which means much of the information of filling in the blanks is speculative.
The only possiblity that could maybe give this credence is that, since Jesus knew they were eventually going to kill him, that by choosing how and when it was done, he might be able to reveal one last travesty to the masses through this.
I am sure he was weary; the years of his ministry were intense. But moreso, in having the power and authority to choose his manner of death, he hoped to reveal something more to the people.
First of all, no Sanhedrin priest worth his salt would have been present at a trial during the time frame of Passover. (Trial took place Thursday evening and Friday morning.) Perhaps Jesus thought that there was a better chance of bringing these dark deeds to light and this was the last opportunity.
The dominant historical view is that the Sanhedrin was controlled primarily by the Sadducees which were associated with the ruling elite. There were only 23 members of the Sanhedrin attending the trial of Jesus; the entirety of the council of 70 did not attend. Most of them would have been studying in preparation for the Passover.
The kangaroo court was held at the home of Caiphus, who was a Sadducee.
The Sadducees were Aaronites who were associated with the leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem. They represented the aristocratic group of the Hasmonean High Priest, who replaced the previous High Priest linegae. The earlier priestly lineage was blamed for allowing the Syrian Emperor (Epiphanes) to desecrate the Temple of Jerusalem with idolotrous sacrifices and to martyr monotheistic Jews. (The Hasmoneans ruled as "priest-kings" claiming title of high priest and king simultaneously.)
As far as the Sadducee beliefs--they rejected the existence of an afterlife and denied resurrection of the dead. They also insisted on strict literal interpretation of the five books of Moses. An eye for an eye meant retribution returned in kind.
I tend to believe that the Sanhedrin was infiltrated by a dark cult that were not representative of the majority.
Now the question remains: Was Judas of the same thought as the Sadducees? Or was he instructed by Jesus in hatching a plot of martyrdom?
I didn't watch the youtubes but I've read the gospel of Judas along with some analysis before. I find the story and it's gnostic interpretation just as likely as anything else written about Jesus.
yadda, what is your evidence that 130=180 is "way after the canonical gospels?"
To me right now, and I'm happy to be corrected on this, the gospels, both in and out of the canon are like getting a couple dozen of us together to write the story of Harry Truman. We'd agree that he was president after Roosevelt, that he made the call to drop the bombs, that he was president at the end of WWII. But to start a relatively solid Truman cult they'd have to find four or five of us who's documents agreed on a significant number of details and more importantly, demonize the rest.
Seriously, when Paul wrote: "All scripture is inspired of God..." did the NT even exist? And if it did, was it considered scripture? He wasn't even talking about those writings.
So true, all the Gospels are fictions, well written compilations of fiction blended with threads of common restructured mythology.
After all we don't see anybody raising the dead back to life or restoring withered limbs and walking on water today and if somebody today declared themselves the Son of God most of us wouldn't believe it unless we are the super gullible type.
That being said I think looking at all those ancient gospel and other so called holy books really gives one a well rounded out picture of what was going on back then to shape religious thinking and better picture of how we got to where we are today.
The gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic gospels may appeal to someone who rejects the canonical Jesus, but such gospels are on even shakier ground and are much less attested by manuscript evidence. Also, unless one knows something of different Gnostic theologies, the gospels of Judas and Phillip, in particular, are dense and incomprehensible, and open to all sorts of interpretations.
Even so, the gospel of Judas may not actually be the radical work that many proclaim it to be. I recommend the book The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gsopel of Judas Really Says, by Dr. April DeConick of Rice University (Houston, Texas, USA).