Judas And Christ Were Closer Than Before Thought?

[BenRaines]

Ancient manuscript suggests new relationship between Jesus, Judas RANDOLPH E. SCHMID - The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Perhaps it wasn't history's greatest betrayal after all, but a simple act of obedience.

Judas turned Jesus over to the high priests, not for money, but because Jesus asked him to do so, according to a newly translated ancient Coptic document.

The "Gospel of Judas" tells a far different tale from the four gospels in the New Testament. It portrays Judas as a favored disciple who was given special knowledge by Jesus -- and turned him in at Jesus's request.

"You will be cursed by the other generations -- and you will come to rule over them," Jesus tells Judas in the document made public Thursday.

The text, one of several ancient documents found in the Egyptian desert in 1970, was preserved and translated by a team of scholars. It was made public in an English translation by the National Geographic Society.

Religious and lay readers alike will debate the meaning and truth of the manuscript.

But it does show the diversity of beliefs in early Christianity, said Marvin Meyer, professor of Bible studies at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

The text, in the Coptic language, was dated to about the year 300 and is a copy of an earlier Greek version.

A "Gospel of Judas" was first mentioned around A.D. 180 by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as heresy because it differed from mainstream Christianity. The actual text had been thought lost until this discovery.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, said, "The people who loved, circulated and wrote down these gospels did not think they were heretics."

Added Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago: "Let a vigorous debate on the significance of this fascinating ancient text begin."

Senior expressed doubt the new gospel will rival the New Testament, but he allowed that opinions are likely to vary.

Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada, said New Testament explanations for Judas' betrayal range from money to the influence of Satan.

"Perhaps more now can be said," he commented. The document "implies that Judas only did what Jesus wanted him to do."

Christianity in the ancient world was much more diverse than it is now, with a number of gospels circulating in addition to the four that were finally collected into the New Testament, noted Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina.

Eventually, one point of view prevailed and the others were declared heresy, he said, including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas.

In Cairo, the editor of the Coptic weekly "Watani," Youssef Sidhom, did not want to make an immediate judgment on the manuscript.

"However," he said, "this will not greatly affect the central belief that considers Judas as a traitor, but there is an old school of thought that says one should not persecute Judas because his role was to complete the prophecies. It seems that the new manuscript will support this point of view -- that Judas's role was pivotal to completing the prophecies."

The newly translated document's text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, "You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.

"Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom," Jesus says to Judas, singling him out for special status. "Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star."

The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection. National Geographic said the author believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus's teachings. The author of the text is not named in the writings.

Discovered in 1970, the papyrus was kept in a safety deposit box for several years and began to deteriorate before conservators restored it. More than 1,000 pieces had to be reassembled.

The material will be donated to the Coptic museum in Cairo, Egypt, so it can be available to all scholars said Ted Waitt of the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, which helped finance the restoration.

In addition to radio carbon dating, the manuscript also was authenticated through ink analysis, multispectral imaging, content and linguistic style and handwriting style, National Geographic reported.

On the Net: http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

[Josie]

WOW BEN!!!

Very interesting. There are so many documents now coming to light and being translated and the amount of material they contain is enormous. There is so much to learn. And yes, there is so much that we don't know, and yet have to learn. We were promised that the truths would be revealed to us as we were ready. Not saying to take these maunscripts as gospel, but indicating that they may provide more knowledge too us and open doors in our mind toward learning and considering new trains of thought.

In our mortal state, it is so hard for us to comprehend Jesus Christ and all he has done for us and continues to do. Surely there is no wonder Judas tried to commit suicide, blaming himself for what he must have felt like he had done to his Lord and Savior? His torment had to be beyond description. Even knowing all that this shows that he might have known. No man can judge another.

I can understand more and more, Elder Bateman's talk in Oct 05' conference about the atonement and what Christ went through and experienced while on Gethsemany.

Thanks Ben, great eye opener to what might have been...

[Ray]

I already know that the story is not true, and it's not because I'm trying to be hard on Judas. I simply know like I know all the other things I know when I know what I know is the truth.

And btw, Josie, if you'll read the manuscript, or that little snippet that Ben quoted from it, you'll notice that it isn't simply stating that Judas may have had good intentions in doing what he chose to do, but it makes him sound like he was the best of our Lord's apostles and will receive the greatest reward from Him too... while it also tries to teach that the body of our Lord is something He "shed" as if that was a good thing to do.

And personally, I also think it's a little disappointing to see that manuscript getting so much attention when there are many others which do teach some truth.

[BenRaines]

Just to be clear I was not making a claim of truth or falsehood. Just pointing out an interesting article and viewpoint. I don't believe that be it fact or not that Christ and Judas had a close friendship would change the plan of salvation or the restoration of the gospel.

The Dead Sea scrolls provide some interesting reading also as does Josephus.

For those that are interested I have read the Old and New Testament 6 times each. I have read the Book of Mormon more than 20 times, given up counting. Same for Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Also read The Messiah series by McConkie twice and the list goes on and on. I don't read anti material but agree with President Hinkley that we should expand our knowledge by reading good books and good literature.

Ben

[Dr T]

I guess there was talk about the Judas Gospel that was supposed to be destroyed due to heresy.

I agree, Huge (BenRaines), becoming well read expands our knowledge.

Dr. T

[BenRaines]

After looking in to it a bit more there will be a two hour documentary about the documents that were found on Sunday April 9th on the National Geographic channel. FYI.

Ben

[Guest ApostleKnight]

As far as the "new" gospel the article cited talks about, I understand from one report that it is a gnostic text. If so, it's well to remember that the gnostics had a widely different view of Jesus than "traditional" Christians of his day. I'd also echo the point that Peter was chief apostle in authority if nothing else, and I'd have a hard time believing that Judas was more "elect" or special than him.

Of course, a mind is like a parachute: It only works if it's open. So I allow for the possibility of new light and truth when it comes up. I simply don't feel this new "gospel" contains much of it. Any document purporting to be genuine which begins with, "The secret revelation..." or "The secret words which Jesus spake to so-and-so..." send up a red flag.

I mean, if they really WERE supposed to be secret, then whoever wrote them down was defying the same type of sacred silence that prevents every temple-goer from just whipping out a tape-recorder and recording the endowment for posterity. So it's kind of a catch-22. If the words were spoken in secrecy, then whoever wrote them down was disobedient and hence their witness (and motive for "spilling the beans") is suspect. If the words weren't true, then whoever wrote them down was fabricating history and not very handily I might add.

But as far as this particular subject goes, I find it interesting that all four gospel writers of the Standard Works of our church agree on Judas' betrayal:

Matt. 10:4 "Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him."

Mark 3:19 "And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house."

Luke 6:16 "And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."

John 6:71 "He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

In the end, I find it hard to believe that Jesus HAD to have one of the twelve betray him, or HAD to instruct anyone to betray him because there were plenty of people who would have and if not Judas then someone would have. I think Judas, being in charge of the money purse of the Church so to speak, disagreed with how Jesus spent or didn't spend it, grew greedy, and thought thirty pieces of shiny sounded pretty good.

Just a thought.

[BenRaines]

ApostleKnight. So good to see you back posting.

Purpose of my posting was to generate discussion. I hope that this post is not percieved as a belief of mine but just some posted information.

There are many things I read. It is the scriptures and general conference talks that I study. :)

Ben

[Josie]

Goodness...

Did not know that that was going to be taken as a commitment to believing anything. Was just commenting on the food for thought and just how much we truly do not know. We will know what we need to know when we need to know it and then there will be no wondering or guessing. Just making comments about the thoughts expressed. There are many documents that have been discovered and translated and are continuing to be translated. Until they are canized though, they are for study only...

You know what I thought about the part of Judas describing himself as favored above the others, LOL. Think about a set of parents that have several children and all the kids think they are loved best. Isn't that what all of should be striving for????

[Snow]

I'm looking forward to the show on Sunday on the National Geograhpic channel but so far I don't see how this is going to be anything different that Nag Hamadi texts.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

ApostleKnight. So good to see you back posting.

Purpose of my posting was to generate discussion. I hope that this post is not percieved as a belief of mine but just some posted information.

There are many things I read. It is the scriptures and general conference talks that I study. :)

Ben

Hey Ben, good to get back discussing with you too. I didn't say I thought you believe the new "gospel" as, well...gospel. I was merely adding my slant on it all. I have nothing but respect for anyone who's read The Messiah Series by McConkie <he said knowingly>. I wish more people would read it, it totally transformed my testimony of and closeness to Jesus. But then only those who've read it will know what they'd be missing if they hadn't, so oh well.

Good to see you're a moderator, there's a good bunch of folks overseeing the site. That's good to know.

[prisonchaplain]

And personally, I also think it's a little disappointing to see that manuscript getting so much attention when there are many others which do teach some truth.

Disappointing, but not surprising. You'd be amazed at how many requests I get in our chapel library for the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. People always want to see the extrabiblical books, the 'lost' books, the books the Church supposedly suppressed, etc. Such a hunger to be on the inside of secret truths (the core of the Gnostic heresy), and to find out what "the system" is hiding. The simple gospel is too straightforward, too conventional, and quite frankly, it does not adaquately stroke the egos of those who would rather be part of a spiritual elite with the inside track.

[Heather]

Pretty interesting, but also I don't think much of it when all four gospel writers agree on Judas' betrayal. Perhaps it was something that Judas took out of context, and believed he was doing what Christ wanted. Maybe that he took payment for the betrayal is where he truly sinned. History is full of nutcases who believe they're doing God's will, and it wouldn't surprise me if he or someone else wrote it down. I just wonder why he would commit suicide if he believed he had done what he was asked to do.

Hmm, funny, but this makes me think a lot about book 6 of harry potter. See the parallels?

[prisonchaplain]

As far as the "new" gospel the article cited talks about, I understand from one report that it is a gnostic text. If so, it's well to remember that the gnostics had a widely different view of Jesus than "traditional" Christians of his day. I'd also echo the point that Peter was chief apostle in authority if nothing else, and I'd have a hard time believing that Judas was more "elect" or special than him.

Gnosticism was and is considered a heresy by most Christians. I remember unwittingly citing the Gospel of Thomas as a source for how early Christians believed about a certain topic. Mercifully, the prof. only deducted a half-grade.

Of course, a mind is like a parachute: It only works if it's open. So I allow for the possibility of new light and truth when it comes up. I simply don't feel this new "gospel" contains much of it. Any document purporting to be genuine which begins with, "The secret revelation..." or "The secret words which Jesus spake to so-and-so..." send up a red flag.

The old joke about a mind being so open the brains start falling out, comes to mind.

I mean, if they really WERE supposed to be secret, then whoever wrote them down was defying the same type of sacred silence that prevents every temple-goer from just whipping out a tape-recorder and recording the endowment for posterity. So it's kind of a catch-22. If the words were spoken in secrecy, then whoever wrote them down was disobedient and hence their witness (and motive for "spilling the beans") is suspect. If the words weren't true, then whoever wrote them down was fabricating history and not very handily I might add.

While I agree that extra scrutiny may be in order when vows of secrecy are broken, whistle-blowers cannot automatically be dismissed.

But as far as this particular subject goes, I find it interesting that all four gospel writers of the Standard Works of our church agree on Judas' betrayal:

As does the Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical, Fundamental, and just about every other strain of Christianity one can think of, sans modern-day Gnostics.

In the end, I find it hard to believe that Jesus HAD to have one of the twelve betray him, or HAD to instruct anyone to betray him because there were plenty of people who would have and if not Judas then someone would have. I think Judas, being in charge of the money purse of the Church so to speak, disagreed with how Jesus spent or didn't spend it, grew greedy, and thought thirty pieces of shiny sounded pretty good.

Just a thought.

Bottom Line: Apostleknight gets an A+ in my book for this post

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Bottom Line: Apostleknight gets an A+ in my book for this post

I hope it's enough to bring up my overall GPA!

[CharlieDesRosiers]

Heather, that is exactly what I thought when I first heard this!

I told my mother that I thought JK Rowling must have gotten her hands on a time-turner, and planted this document about Judas in order to give us a clue about the seventh Harry Potter book. When she finished laughing, she agreed that it was a distinct possibility.

(I am such a geek.)

[Guest Monica]

I watched the National Geographic program on the "Gospel of Judas" last night as well.

I really hate to watch these special "religious" programs which almost always seem to be broadcasted around holidays. First of all, the so called religious experts that range from professors to clergy, that are there to give their opinions, rarely refer to any of the bibles scriptures in context, if ever. Secondly, they seem to try to add a worldly spin to spiritual things. Thirdly, the majority of them state some sort of doubt about what is really written in the bible. I feel sad for those watching who arent well versed or believers which can be lead astray by false doctrines.

Now as for what the "Gospel of Judas" says, lets take a closer look. Thank God that we have the scriptures that show us the truth. Even in the old testament there are profesies that back up the new testament gospel claims that Judas was no friend to Jesus.

Psalm 41:9 written: 1023 BC (Before Christ)

"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel

against me."

Zechariah 11:12 written: 487 BC (Before Christ)

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for

my price thirty pieces of silver."

Matthew 26:15 "And Judas asked, 'What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?' So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver."

Zechariah 11:13 written: 487 BC (Before Christ)

"And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of

them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the

Lord."

Matthew 27:6-7 "The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners."

Here are Jesus words:

Mat 26:25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

Luke 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

Bottom line, the old and new testament accounts match showing that Judas was a evil traitor.

Now as for the documents being authentic as far as age, language, and matierial, it can be so. However, not all we read is true. We have many fiction literary works. Will people reading a lost copy of a fictitious novel in some distant future in 2000 years assume that its an actual true historical account?

As it is, today, our own newspapers prints errors and issues retractions. Media bias slants the news. Editorials stretch the truth to state opinions. And lets not forget the slander and libel lawsuites that have been won against those who publicize false stories about public figures.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

And personally, I also think it's a little disappointing to see that manuscript getting so much attention when there are many others which do teach some truth.

Disappointing, but not surprising. You'd be amazed at how many requests I get in our chapel library for the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. People always want to see the extrabiblical books, the 'lost' books, the books the Church supposedly suppressed, etc. Such a hunger to be on the inside of secret truths (the core of the Gnostic heresy), and to find out what "the system" is hiding. The simple gospel is too straightforward, too conventional, and quite frankly, it does not adaquately stroke the egos of those who would rather be part of a spiritual elite with the inside track.

I have no problem with the idea that the "simple gospel" can be found in other "books' besides those contained in the Holy Bible. I was simply trying to say that instead of publicizing texts which so obviously contradict the scriptures we already have, it would be nice to see the publicizing of texts which add to the texts we already have without contradicting those texts.

And btw, as I said in another thread, I think it helps when we differentiate between what other texts are actually saying and our interpretation of those texts.

I think Judas, being in charge of the money purse of the Church so to speak, disagreed with how Jesus spent or didn't spend it, grew greedy, and thought thirty pieces of shiny sounded pretty good.

Just a thought.

I guess that guess is about as good as any other, but I'm a little more partial to the idea that Judas may have been trying to coerce Jesus into taking the role that Judas thought Jesus should have... with the idea that Judas may have been a zealot with a family connection to the Macabees (sp?).

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I guess that guess is about as good as any other, but I'm a little more partial to the idea that Judas may have been trying to coerce Jesus into taking the role that Judas thought Jesus should have... with the idea that Judas may have been a zealot with a family connection to the Macabees (sp?).

Interesting. Where does this zealot connection come from? And interestingly, as a useless or maybe not-so-useless bit of trivia, Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles that Jesus chose who was NOT from Galilee...he was from Judea. <cue the X-Files theme music>

[Ray]

Heh, from something I read. And whether or not he was a zealot, there were some zealots then. :)

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

I guess that guess is about as good as any other, but I'm a little more partial to the idea that Judas may have been trying to coerce Jesus into taking the role that Judas thought Jesus should have... with the idea that Judas may have been a zealot with a family connection to the Macabees (sp?).

Interesting. Where does this zealot connection come from? And interestingly, as a useless or maybe not-so-useless bit of trivia, Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles that Jesus chose who was NOT from Galilee...he was from Judea. <cue the X-Files theme music>

I got this from Wikipedia--Ray might be right here!

Some have speculated that the name of Jesus' disciple Yehuda Ish-Kerayot (Judas Iscariot) means that he was a sicarius, "daggerman" - "Judas the Zealot". However, the Latin and Hebrew words for "zealot" sound very different, so it is hard to conclude definitively.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I got this from Wikipedia--Ray might be right here!

Some have speculated that the name of Jesus' disciple Yehuda Ish-Kerayot (Judas Iscariot) means that he was a sicarius, "daggerman" - "Judas the Zealot". However, the Latin and Hebrew words for "zealot" sound very different, so it is hard to conclude definitively.

Having a little knowledge of Hebrew (reading and writing) I have to point out that Judas's last name is nothing more than a geographic location. The Hebrew word "ish" (pronounced eesh) means "man." And Kerioth was a city in the Holy Land (since OT times). So his last name ish (man) + Kerioth (city) means simply: "Man from Kerioth." I think you'll find many Biblical commentaries (non-LDS included) agree. Just another tidbit for the interested. :)

[Ray]

And don't forget that cities were named after people, just as this one was here. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

And don't forget that cities were named after people, just as this one was here. :)

I checked the link, but unless I'm mistaken it seems that Kerioth there is just a city name, not a name of a person. So Judas was named after where he was from (Kerioth); Kerioth wasn't named after a man. Right?

[Ray]

Heh, not by the way I see it. I understand Joshua to be saying that those cities were named according to families within the tribe or family of Judah.

And in case this helps you or somebody else, I will explain it all like this:

Israel was a person, and each of his sons was given a name. Judah was one of his sons, and each of his sons was given a name. And after his sons formed “families”, which were all known by their own names, each family was given some land where they formed what was known as a “city”, according to the names of each son within the family or tribe of Judah.

Or in other words, the land for all of those cities became the inheritance of each family according to name.

And btw, I’m supposing the alternate view which you are suggesting is that the area of land was already established with each and every one of those cities, so I would be interested in hearing you explain why there would be so many cities in that relatively small area of land.

Oh, and here is something else which might help to you to see what I see.

In verses 1-12, Joshua described the boundaries for all of the tribe of Judah, and in verse 3 he mentioned Hezron. Then later, at the end of verse 25, he mentioned "Hezron which is Hazor", and that name in the beginning of verse 25 shows that Hezron was given to Hazor.

Anyway, it's not really all that important that we come to know the truth concerning this issue, but I do think it helps to realize that some cities were named after people, as we still do some of that today.