Truth or Fable?

[KitabuKizuri]

The book is complete nonsense without any redeeming value as a work of scholarship. Consider the following: The author begins by analysing the phrase anaphasis logos meaning the unspoken word, which he assures us conventional scholars cant understand because they arent trained in mysticism. He then quotes a Hindu swami at length to try to explain it. Now by conventional scholar he means Dr Elaine Pagels, who wrote one of the earliest commentaries on the Gospel of Judas. She is an atheist, female PHd in Early Christianity, one of the least conventional New Testament scholars who is publishing today and one of only a handful of American scholars fluent in Coptic, the language that most of the gnostic texts are written in. A book outlining how Hindu mysticism influenced the Gnostic authors would be interesting but there are none because Hinduism had no influence at all on the Gnostics which makes most of the first chapter irrelevant and unsubstantiated conjecture. Besides this there is actually a long tradition of Jewish Mysticism that actually did influence the gnostics and Dr Pagels is more than familiar with it. The author is way out of his depth on this book.

I wholeheartedly agree. The direction of this book was impossible to decipher, and the author came off as haughty at some points and weak at others. I have no clue what the author is actually claiming, and half of the pieces of Judas he cites are missing chunks to the point that the meaning of each sentence cited must be entirely fabricated. These "parallels" don't prove anything, much less a conspiracy threaded throughout all of Christendom. I'm pagan, and even I think that this explanation is more off-the-wall than the existence of a single God.

Sometimes people who sell themselves as experts publish works hoping no one will scrutinize when they attempt to 'fill the gaps' of missing information with theory.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I think it is true. It is always good for everyone no to stick on the "official truth" (the Bible in this case) and consider other possible facts, as this book does.

I quite enjoy comparing and contrasting different religious beliefs. Yes, there are always definite differences, but it's amazing how much many of them actually have in common. Thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[beccabecky]

It's controvertial, but sometimes controversy sells. After all, we're discussing it here in this forum, aren't we?

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Something we tend to forget is that the Bible was once a 'living' collection of documents. These documents were written by human hands and were subject to the changing fortunes and dispositions of the peoples they served. 'Peoples', I say, because there was, for a goodly while, a pair of Hebrew kingdoms, each with their own take and each with their own contributions. (The Golden Bull story, for example, may well be an attack on specific worship practices of the northern kingdom, Israel.)

Precisely!!! Soooo many people don't even want to look at that much less admit it! Humans are fallible! We have no way of knowing if what they wrote "came from God" or if it was a result of what they and their people were going through and/or their own opinions about things - such as other worship practices. It's entirely possible that they fully believed it came straight from God. But (and I believe the point has already been made somewhere in this forum) believing something and writing it down, doesn't automatically make it true. Why wouldn't this be as true of those documents the Rabbi's decided were biblical as those they did not?

This period gave us Genesis 1 - a document patterned on the Babylonian genesis story, the Enuma Elish - and, very probably, the story of the great flood.

I've never actually seen the Enuma Elish before so I went and looked it up. Those are some really...volatile...gods. Not exactly the view of perfection. But some of this was actually accepted as canon? Wouldn't that be a bit heretical?

The answer is that any translation worth the paper its printed on isn't a translation of a translation. No serious, ethical scholar would translate, for example, an English Bible into Italian for just the reason you stated. We have better sources.

Yet I have absolutely no doubt that there are any number of Bibles (and other religious texts) floating around out there and being accepted as authentic which have been translated in exactly this way with the general public none the wiser. And how are they/we expected to be able to tell the difference?

True - my point here is that the author keeps telling us that his tradition is older than mainline Christianity. The earliest Gospel we have is Mark's, which was, itself, key in the creation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. If the Gnostics have a Gospel older than Mark's, then they have a shot at establishing their religion as older than Christianity. Maybe I'm just picking nits, but it irks me how much he asserts without data to back it up.

Admittedly, this doesn't equal an entire gospel, but just going from a memory I have from one of my religion classes, can't some elements of Gnosticism actually be traced back as far as Plato? That's certainly pre-Christian.

[godreaujea]

I believe that with religion, the truth is in the eye of the beholder. By that I mean it can be interpreted in so many ways that there isn’t just one answer. If you want to believe something is true, you can find evidence to support your claim. However I think people must be open to hearing other interpretations as well.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I believe that with religion, the truth is in the eye of the beholder. By that I mean it can be interpreted in so many ways that there isn’t just one answer. If you want to believe something is true, you can find evidence to support your claim. However I think people must be open to hearing other interpretations as well.

Very, very true. I couldn't have put it better myself! Thanks so much for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Nicole_Boyd]

I believe that Judas was the betrayer as the Bible says he was. This book didn’t change my mind at all. I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The “gospel of Judas” has so much missing from it, I don’t know how the author thinks this can be “proof” of Judas becoming the next master after Jesus.

[jlrinc]

Something we tend to forget is that the Bible was once a 'living' collection of documents. These documents were written by human hands and were subject to the changing fortunes and dispositions of the peoples they served. 'Peoples', I say, because there was, for a goodly while, a pair of Hebrew kingdoms, each with their own take and each with their own contributions. (The Golden Bull story, for example, may well be an attack on specific worship practices of the northern kingdom, Israel.)

Precisely!!! Soooo many people don't even want to look at that much less admit it! Humans are fallible! We have no way of knowing if what they wrote "came from God" or if it was a result of what they and their people were going through and/or their own opinions about things - such as other worship practices. It's entirely possible that they fully believed it came straight from God. But (and I believe the point has already been made somewhere in this forum) believing something and writing it down, doesn't automatically make it true. Why wouldn't this be as true of those documents the Rabbi's decided were biblical as those they did not?

This period gave us Genesis 1 - a document patterned on the Babylonian genesis story, the Enuma Elish - and, very probably, the story of the great flood.

I've never actually seen the Enuma Elish before so I went and looked it up. Those are some really...volatile...gods. Not exactly the view of perfection. But some of this was actually accepted as canon? Wouldn't that be a bit heretical?

The answer is that any translation worth the paper its printed on isn't a translation of a translation. No serious, ethical scholar would translate, for example, an English Bible into Italian for just the reason you stated. We have better sources.

Yet I have absolutely no doubt that there are any number of Bibles (and other religious texts) floating around out there and being accepted as authentic which have been translated in exactly this way with the general public none the wiser. And how are they/we expected to be able to tell the difference?

True - my point here is that the author keeps telling us that his tradition is older than mainline Christianity. The earliest Gospel we have is Mark's, which was, itself, key in the creation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. If the Gnostics have a Gospel older than Mark's, then they have a shot at establishing their religion as older than Christianity. Maybe I'm just picking nits, but it irks me how much he asserts without data to back it up.

Admittedly, this doesn't equal an entire gospel, but just going from a memory I have from one of my religion classes, can't some elements of Gnosticism actually be traced back as far as Plato? That's certainly pre-Christian.

Much of the vocabulary used by Coptics was derived from the neo platonists and ultimately Back to Plato. Also many ideas were taken from the tradition of Jewish mysticism also older than Christianity and from the mystery religions of the mediterranean also older, however its the mixture of all of these influences that dates Gnosticism to the mid second century, Some works like the Gospel of Thomas could be as early as mid first century. But there is some debate on whether it predates christianity but in any case the coptic gospels by definition dont predate christianity.

[Browlyns]

There's nothing true here. The author is obviously a non Christian trying to debunk the traditional story. In my Christian belief the bible is and will always be correct.

[Anthony__]

Nothing convinces me about the book. I guess this is a sensitive topic to write us as it is very biased. Although, the author did his research but I don't think it is right.

[Innae]

Hmmm...I didn't really get a "hero" feel for Judas as much as a "not as evil as everyone thinks" feel. One thing I feel I have to ask though, many who are reading the book are not Christian, so how can they be being 'swayed'? Perspective is huge with this book. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your opinion with us!
[/quote]

Hmmmm... You don't need to be christian to know the contrast between the bible and this book. The world sees Judas as a traitor so this is definitely tests a widely shared belief. Christian or not you may be phased by the conspiracy. Thanks for replying!

[Laura Ungureanu]

The author did his homework properly. However, I am not easily convinced and especially not by one book. If more people support this idea, than I might be interested, but I can think about as only fiction for now.

[Sahansdal]

I believe that with religion, the truth is in the eye of the beholder. By that I mean it can be interpreted in so many ways that there isn’t just one answer. If you want to believe something is true, you can find evidence to support your claim. However I think people must be open to hearing other interpretations as well.

My goal in writing Misreading Judas was to bring as much factual evidence as possible. It is textual analysis, mostly. The Path is One. All description is just dancing around the real Way. It is in truth beyond words, literally.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Nothing convinces me about the book. I guess this is a sensitive topic to write us as it is very biased. Although, the author did his research but I don't think it is right.

It seems many agree with you and yes, the author does seem somewhat biased away from Christianity. Thanks for stopping in and commenting!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

The author did his homework properly. However, I am not easily convinced and especially not by one book. If more people support this idea, than I might be interested, but I can think about as only fiction for now.

Good point! Thanks for stopping by and commenting!