Gospel of Judas

[rj_tim]

In fact, none of the Gospels date to much earlier than a Century after Jesus.

Conservative and liberal scholars agree that the dating of the first (first meaning their respective arrangement in the Bible) three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is before 70 A.D (approximately 30 years after Jesus's death). Probably the greatest evidence for this is that none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. The destruction of the Temple was such a great catastrophic event in the history of the Jews that such event should be really hard to overlook. The fourth Gospel, John, is dated (liberally) at approximately 90 AD.

[rj_tim]

Irenaeus (who was the disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of the apostle John himself) was familiar with the Gospel of Judas and identified it for what it was: fiction. In his Against Heresies Book I, chapter 31, section 1, we read,

"Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

So it was known by the time of Irenaeus' writing (182-188 or so) and was known to be exactly what it is: fiction based upon gnostic myths and teaching.

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1324

[rj_tim]

there are absolutely no firsthand accounts of Jesus in the Bible as even the Four Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... but were written in their names, just like the "Gospel of Judas" was not written by Judas himself.

As what I've written above, Matthew, Mark and Luke are dated by conservative and liberal scholars alike before 70 A.D., so it is highly likely that these were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke as these people were still probably alive by that time.

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.

The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a Gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)." Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."

John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.


Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

[rj_tim]

In contrast, the Gospel of Judas, which is contemporaneous with other gnostic gospels like Thomas and Mary, was probably written in the middle of the second century, i.e., around AD 150 or so. This particular work was written no later than about AD 165, because Irenaeus was familiar with it and identified it for what it was: fiction (Against Heresies Book I, chapter 31, section 1). Judas could not have been alive at that time because the account in Matthew had him hanging himself in utter remorse and guilt after betraying Jesus (Matthew 27:3-5).

[rj_tim]

I have a book that deals with the 4 Gospels in the official NT canon and the so-called Gnostic gospels ("Nag Hammadi" gospels). This book is "Jesus in an Age of Controversy" by Douglas Groothuis. In-depth and well-researched scholarly work. Unfortunately I do not have it right now

Sorry kung medyo OT kasi nag-deal na ako mainly dun sa 4 gospels

[Flagg]

Prior to this publicity, there was a theory in the Church that Judas was a Zealot (ultranationalist, ultra-pious Jewish rebel/terrorists - parang al-Qaeda). In Judas' absolute faith that Christ is the Son of God, he betrayed Christ in the hope of speeding up the Messianic process. In Judas the Zealot's mind, Jesus would be a Messiah who was an almighty warrior, zapping Romans out of Judea.

The Judas gospel in sir jim's post seems to affirm this theory as it espouses certain Zealot-like, exclusionary views: "this generation is unclean...cannot be saved..." and "...only you apart from those 12..." among others. (sounds very SS-like to me: there are Aryans, and then there are SS Aryans...)

Since Jesus did not zap any Romans, and the Zealots (as well as the then-existing Jewish nation) were annihilated by the Romans (est. 3m Jews were killed in that bloodbath)...

Eto IMHO lang, this 'gospel' was some sort of Zealot-affiliated apologist propaganda. Para sa writer nitong Judas gospel, the Jewish nation was destroyed because they were not worthy... now, circa 200-300AD, (medyo malakas na ang Christianity) aba, e dapat pasalamat ang mga Kristiyano sa mga Zealot, kasi si Hudas ang nagpalabas kay Kristo bilang Diyos! Ehehe. Ayos. About as logical as slamming planes into buildings will bring about Allah's paradise on Earth.

[oldblue]

*flagg, how did you feel first time you read (noon bata ka pa) about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? incomplete ba yun story? were you expecting that when Jesus returns, he should have zapped the living daylights out of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Soldiers, the Jews and the Pharisees and all the infidels hehehe

an eye for an eye, retribution, vindication just like the movies or any story with struggle.

[oldblue]

huh? kahit ako sa ngayon magdalawang isip kung ituturo ko ba ang kaibigan/kamag-anak kung alam ko na huhulihin ng pulis

yes that's the whole idea. and the perhaps the paradox of the Judas story. of course, hindi mo ituturo ang kamag-anak/kaibigan mo, kasi tao lang din sila masasaktan at puwede mapahamak. but with Jesus, Judas had every confidence with him bec. he knew and he believed that he was not only a man. but with the other 11 except Peter, ganun din kala nila Jesus is just like any other human na puwede i-torture, saktan or mamatay. They only attained genuine faith when they saw Jesus resurrected. But with Judas, alam na nya beforehand.

[oldblue]

In contrast, the Gospel of Judas, which is contemporaneous with other gnostic gospels like Thomas and Mary, was probably written in the middle of the second century, i.e., around AD 150 or so. This particular work was written no later than about AD 165, because Irenaeus was familiar with it and identified it for what it was: fiction (Against Heresies Book I, chapter 31, section 1). Judas could not have been alive at that time because the account in Matthew had him hanging himself in utter remorse and guilt after betraying Jesus (Matthew 27:3-5).

*rj tim, true. but still the method of proving/disproving the authenticity of this gospel is scientific, with timelines and stuff.

back in bible thread, we have concluded that religion/faith cant be proved/disproved by scientific means. for objectivity sake, yes there is need to verify the authenticity of this so-called gospel of Judas.

but putting objective aside, and let faith come in. one has only to reflect on the meaning of this gospel of Judas. that alone is enough to determine that this gospel was written with divine guidance or not. and from the personality of Judas himself, makikita mo na very inquisitive sya on Jesus. he was asking about the spiritual world na and the future.

and if we will account the other four gospels, we and the whole world as well as the other apostles since the time of Jesus, branded him as a traitor but failed to see that Judas was the most repentant among the apostles.

acts of repentance of Judas:
1. he returned the 30 pcs. of silver to save Jesus from condemnation.
2. he tried to kill himself or killed himself for his master.

no other disciple had that courage.

[Flagg]

*flagg, how did you feel first time you read (noon bata ka pa) about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? incomplete ba yun story? were you expecting that when Jesus returns, he should have zapped the living daylights out of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Soldiers, the Jews and the Pharisees and all the infidels hehehe

an eye for an eye, retribution, vindication just like the movies or any story with struggle.

Aba hinde... I was brainwashed into "forgiveness and love for all." Later on, naging "Make love not war."

Above post was just my opinion na parang terorista lang si Judas and he was trying to make Jesus into one, too. Kinda like Osama & Allah.

[Flagg]

back in bible thread, we have concluded that religion/faith cant be proved/disproved by scientific means. for objectivity sake, yes there is need to verify the authenticity of this so-called gospel of Judas.

Na-conclude pala yung Bible thread? Ehehe, akala ko nasapawan lang sya ni Inday...

but putting objective aside, and let faith come in. one has only to reflect on the meaning of this gospel of Judas. that alone is enough to determine that this gospel was written with divine guidance or not. and from the personality of Judas himself, makikita mo na very inquisitive sya on Jesus. he was asking about the spiritual world na and the future.

and if we will account the other four gospels, we and the whole world as well as the other apostles since the time of Jesus, branded him as a traitor but failed to see that Judas was the most repentant among the apostles.

acts of repentance of Judas:
1. he returned the 30 pcs. of silver to save Jesus from condemnation.
2. he tried to kill himself or killed himself for his master.

no other disciple had that courage.

I dunno, I don't believe in doing bad (suicide) to fix another bad (betrayal).
AFAIK, suicide is a convenient cop-out. Even the 'honorable' Japanese seppuku seems to me a cop-out cuz they can't live with trying to atone for their 'shame.'

[oldblue]

I dunno, I don't believe in doing bad (suicide) to fix another bad (betrayal).
AFAIK, suicide is a convenient cop-out. Even the 'honorable' Japanese seppuku seems to me a cop-out cuz they can't live with trying to atone for their 'shame.'

it's the thought that counts

[Flagg]

Hmm, sa bagay, I overheard this one time: "The only good thing in a suicide bombing is that there's one less suicide bomber."

Oop OT na sobra... Baka alien yung nagsulat sa Gospel ni Judas?

[niky]

*rj tim: Thanks for the info! My mistake... I should have said "not much earlier" instead of "not earlier than a century".

But it still underscores a point. The earliest written forms of most of the Gospels were secondhand from the disciples of the disciples, and not exactly penned by the disciples themselves (Matthew's is still a sticking point, though). Theory has it that in their current form, Matthew, Luke and John could be from about 60 AD because of their anti-Semitic slant. This is because of the failed rebellion of the Jews around that time.

But it is true, most of the gnostic Gospels are further removed from the primary source than the "true" Gospels, and like I said, are more speculative and philosophical than the others.