The Book of Judas

[E_Lewis]

I just found out that the Book of Judas was found in 2006. It says that Jesus asked Judas as his closest friend to turn him over to the authorites and told him that by doing so he would exceed the other disciples.

A lot of thoughts came to mind after hearing this. Is it true? Well, I see no reason it would be false. Many scriptures weren't actually in the Bible and we have just as much evidence to prove that this book is false as we do to prove any one of them are false.

Was Judas lying when he wrote the book? Again, we don't have anymore proof that Judas was lying than what we have to prove Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul weren't lying.

What does this mean? Was Jesus lying about Judas' betrayal? What does this make you think?

[Kory Tack]

It's false. Why would Jesus ask Judas to hand him over? He foretold that Judas would betray him. Therefore it wouldn't be betrayal if he asked him too.

Every other book of the Bible has been examined and found to have something in it and other scriptures that tie it into the rest of the bible. Since the book of Judas contradicts the other 4 gospels, I would say that it is false.

What proof is there that Judas wrote this book? He went and hung himself almost immediately after Jesus was arrested.

If Jesus lied about Judas' betrayal, then that would mean that Jesus isn't God and that nullifies any need for a discussion because the entire New Testament is a lie.

I hope I helped with your questions

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

Are you familiar with the history of the canonization of the bible?

In particular, there were some key criteria which were used to establish the canon. I pulled these from the wikipedia page:
1.) Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2.) Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century) as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament).
3.) Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4.) Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

In addition, I believe that there are some books collectively called the "Gnostic Gospels" which were written later but claimed to have been written by authoritative sources. The article lists the Gospel of Judas along with the other recognized Gnostic Gospels and claims that it is consistent with Gnosticism which was very incompatible with Christianity.

[Kenmore Thompson]

Bryan touched on it already, but the Gospel of Judas is one of what is called the Gnostic Gospels. Gnosticism was a fairly popular cult going around in the Roman empire in the few centuries following (and preceding, to a lesser extent) the life of Jesus.

The main tenants, really, of Gnosticism is that the world is horribly broken (something that the Christians believed), but that the world was broken because the god that created it was imperfect (something that Christians do not believe). The Gnostics also believed that there was secret knowledge out there that allowed individuals to shed their imperfections (or, most of them) and to commune with that imperfect god ('Gnosis' is actually Greek for knowledge. Unless it's Latin. I don't quite recall exactly)

Gnosticism already had a bit in common with the newborn Christianity, so in the centuries following the death of Christ, Gnostic cults started to appropriate the Christian story, and Gnostic gospels were written (probably by those who believed they were writing true gospels). The Gospel of Judas is just one of dozens. (I should also point out that the Gospel of Judas is highly fragmentary. Huge chunks of it are missing, so we're not quite sure what it has to say exactly.) There is also a gospel of Mary, a gospel of Thomas (one of the more popular ones for people to talk about) ... basically, if they are a character in the life of Jesus, they probably have a gnostic gospel attached to their name. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they had discovered a Gospel of the Neighbor's Cat.

Between the time of Christ's death, to the time of Constantine's conversion, the Gnostic Church and the 'Catholic' Church (which is how I'll refer to the 'orthodox' church that eventually became what we know today) were in an ideological struggle between each-other. That's why when Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians, it wasn't so unbelievable to the average Roman. They knew that the Gnostics and the Catholics were struggling against each-other, and it was conceivable that it had turned violent.

Eventually, we know, the Catholics won out. The Catholic church eventually got their act together, and declared which scriptures were 'true' by canonizing them so that there was no confusion. When Christianity was eventually made the official religion of Rome, they also had the political ability to alienate and eventually eliminate the Gnostic Church.

And that is why you don't have to worry about those Gnostic 'Gospels.' There has been some growing interest in them in recent decades, but the Church fathers made it easy on us. They Canonized the scriptures they believed to be legitimate and true, and they deserve our trust because they were living only a hundred or so years after these gospels had been written, not two thousand years afterward like we are. And when we look over their choices in which scriptures they canonized, it appears they did a good job. Our New Testament is thematically sound, and far less contradictory than some would have us believe. The Gnostic gospels sometimes don't even agree with themselves, let alone each-other! So the Bible you pick up from your local bookstore is worthy of your trust. Whatever is 'left out' isn't worth worrying about, and whatever is there deserves to be there (With few exceptions. The Apocalypse of John was only accepted into the bible after great debate and much controversy. I would argue that it would have been better left out of the scripture.)