Truth or Fable?

[Lisa A Rayburn]

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.

True, the book was often difficult to 'interpret' if you will, requiring re-reading of sections...and sometimes even that did little to help. I'm more an Omnist than anything else, and I find 'conspiracy theories', whether religion based or not, fascinating to contemplate. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with us!

[Dragonsend]

I tend to look at it like this, we have extensive evidence of what life was like 2000 years ago. Beliefs are a different story, but I believe that the TEXT taken at face value, backs up the story that we read in the Bible. There seems to be a consistency in the stories without all the mumbo jumbo.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I agree with jlrinc and freakkshowx. The author is out of his depth.

Perhaps the Gospel of Judas needs a champion, but this author is not speaking as a scholar, but as a devotee of a modern religion. Any plausible defense of an ancient document needs to come along with an understanding of its place in history.

Think of it this way - when an author makes an offhand allusion to a man in a tweed suit and deerstalker, bent over a magnifying glass, we can fairly safely assume the writer is speaking of Sherlock Holmes. Now, imagine this author's work is rediscovered after two-thousand years; 1,500, we'll say, after the desolation of the culture that produced it and after new cultures and nations have risen and fallen in its place. The offhand allusion survives, but what if the thing to which it was alluding did not? What if no record survived of the Greatest Detective and the London he inhabited? What if the inhabitants of this strange world of 4019 haven't the foggiest idea what in the blue blazes a deerstalker is? - I'd wager there are more than a few people today who couldn't pull that one out of their hat - and that's hardly at the distance of a single century.

My point being, we are at a distance of close enough to two thousand years from the creation of this document; have little understanding of the context - the people, time, and pressures that produced it; and we don't even have a copy of it in its original language (the author, himself, relying on a translation of a translation).

So, to address the question of the book: Was Judas 'Savior' or 'Betrayer'? First (or maybe not even first), we have to discuss whether Jesus was fully human, fully human and a Prophet, half-human-half-God, fully-human-And-fully-God, a spirit with no physical body, a spirit inhabiting a physical body, or something else entirely - all of which were actual, recorded beliefs from the early centuries of Christ-centric religions (look into the Christological Controversies - it's interesting stuff). We also have to discuss whether 'Christ' and 'Jesus' are one and the same or separate entities. The ancient Gnostics tended towards the 'fully spirit' (Christ) or possession models (Christ in Jesus) while what became mainline Christianity eventually established the doctrine of his being fully-human-And-fully-God (and, incidentally, that Jesus and Christ are one and the same). After that, we can debate whether delivering a fully mortal man to be killed could be called 'saving' and whether a spirit can be betrayed to death.

By which I mean; it's complicated.

Yes, it is complicated indeed. This especially stood out to me in your response:

"...we don't even have a copy of it in its original language (the author, himself, relying on a translation of a translation)."

True, but the same could be said of many, many historical texts, including the Bible. Though, granted people and events in the Bible have also been documented by other cultures, such as the Egyptians 'mentioning' Moses in hieroglyphs.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Its even worse than it seems.The book really goes off the rails when he begins to quote Robert Eisenman as his primary source. According to Eisenman the New Testament writers substituted Judas for James, to make the stories acceptable to the proto-orthodox church in Rome. This may or may not be true, but the Gnostic texts are by definition heretical, the authors dont care what the church in Rome thinks, Gnostic writers heavily favored James already and had no reason to disguise James as Judas. Besides substituting Judas for James to make it more acceptable to the Church in Rome would be like trying to make a book about Eichmann more acceptable to Jews by changing Eichmann to Hitler. The whole foundation crumbles when you ask why the author of Gospel of Judas felt the need to disguise James in this text but in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus tells his disciples that when he is gone they are to go to James "for whom the heavens and Earth came together". My opinion is that the Gospel of Judas was never intended to be taken seriously but was a kind of reductio ad absurdum to show the logical outcome of believing the doctrine espoused by those in Rome.

I had difficulty buying into the whole Judas/James theory as well. Does that mean Judas wasn't even a real person, except as an alias for James? If so, why does the Bible mention him hanging himself? Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Innae]

I think the author knew portraying Judas as the hero was a stretch but it just goes to show who can be swayed by warped text and who's strong in their faith

[Washboard]

I am not sure that it matters what is true or not. I do agree with that author about one thing- the church is going to cling to the "truth" that most benefit the church instead of what may end up being the real truth.

[SavannaEGoth]

Whoa . . . I'm going to have to read through the comments all over again. I feel like there was a sudden, huge shift in the mood of the BoTM forum, here.

My original stance on this remains--we don't know what truly happened or what didn't happen all those years ago, and can't guarantee the authenticity of either perspective. We don't even know if the scenario up for debate ever happened. It is really interesting coming back today and reading everyone's passionate comments, though.

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

[jlrinc]

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I can only speak for myself. I have no religious bias for or against. I respect everyone's religious beliefs until they are put into book form. I treated this book like I did Lee Strobel's apologetics books. Like I do with any book of Religious history. I can read the Bible or Homer and suspend my disbelief, but if you write a book about the Bible or Homer make sure you got your facts together. His inspiration is Eisenman's book on James which has some wonderful insight. There is no doubt that Stephen who is martyred in Acts is a substitute for James. When you see the clues its undeniable. The beloved disciple when you see the clues is obviously James. I have no problem with the idea in general but when Eisenman claims that Judas is James, He is just guessing. Misreading Judas starts with these guesses and doubles down on the idea . The motives of the Christians wanting to erase James are clear, James competes with them. The word antichrists was coined for those who left the roman church to go back to Jerusalem and the teachings of James. But the Gnostics loved James and couldn't have cared less what Rome thought of them so why disguise james at all? Why disguise him as Judas? When Jesus is asked in the gospel of Thomas to whom should they go after Jesus dies he answers "You are to go to James , for whom the heavens and the Earth came together" Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas, feel the need to disguise. Theres a phrase attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli when "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." Thats what I think about this book, 'It is not even wrong'. I dont say it with malice but it is a singularly bad book

[Washboard]

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.

In addition to automatically dismissing the expertise of others and declaring himself the only one that can possibly correctly interpret the texts, I learned from other sections on this forum that he also was taking peices of quotes from his reference books and removing the context to the point that it was portraying the opposite meaning of the entire quote. This level of misquoting makes me suspect that he doesn't actually have a good understanding of any of the texts he was referencing.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I am honestly wary about labeling anything in a relgious text or relating to a story within as fact at all, so I apologize if I sound biased, but although I like the unqiue take on the situation and admire the amount of work put into writing the book I don't think this take on the events of Judas' "betrayal" is any more credible than the original bible story itself. If I absolutely had to choose one to stand by, however, I might favor the scenario set up by the author. I enjoy giving characters/people the benefit of the doubt and seeings things from different points of view. There's a reason behind every "fall from grace," as it were. Every antagonist has a backstory and a motivation.

I found the scenario interesting as well. But then, I love a good conspiracy theory as well as giving people the benefit of the doubt, as you said. I agree that the author did seem to do his homework on this, but from the comments, all do not agree!! Since I began the discussion, I'm trying very hard to reserve judgment. I love your closing statement, so true. My oldest daughter loves to "play devil's advocate' with that particular theme. Hitler, Kahn (from Star Trek), and yes, even Lucifer among others have featured in our family discussions! Interestingly enough, since I read the book and shared parts of it with them, it's become an ongoing debate in our house!!

Whoa . . . I'm going to have to read through the comments all over again. I feel like there was a sudden, huge shift in the mood of the BoTM forum, here.

My original stance on this remains--we don't know what truly happened or what didn't happen all those years ago, and can't guarantee the authenticity of either perspective. We don't even know if the scenario up for debate ever happened. It is really interesting coming back today and reading everyone's passionate comments, though.

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I definitely feel/felt the mood shift. My first response was "O...kay. Didn't know I was going to open THIS big of a can of worms with this topic!" Seriously though, I'm liking the fact that it's spurring discussion, even if it gets a bit intense at times. As I said in an earlier response: Yes, the author is working with a translation of a translation, but one could say the same thing about the Bible. It will be interesting to see where the conversation goes. Thanks so much for stopping in and contributing!!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I tend to look at it like this, we have extensive evidence of what life was like 2000 years ago. Beliefs are a different story, but I believe that the TEXT taken at face value, backs up the story that we read in the Bible. There seems to be a consistency in the stories without all the mumbo jumbo.

Interesting. No one has taken that point of view. I found it difficult to unravel the mumbo jumbo to find the base story. Since I started the conversation, I'm not taking sides, but I would love to hear how you came to that conclusion! Thanks for stopping in and adding to the discussion!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I think the author knew portraying Judas as the hero was a stretch but it just goes to show who can be swayed by warped text and who's strong in their faith

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!

[Zeix]

To say the truth I simply cannot make myself believe in Judas being the good guy. Even though am not a Christian.

[SavannaEGoth]

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I can only speak for myself. I have no religious bias for or against. I respect everyone's religious beliefs until they are put into book form. I treated this book like I did Lee Strobel's apologetics books. Like I do with any book of Religious history. I can read the Bible or Homer and suspend my disbelief, but if you write a book about the Bible or Homer make sure you got your facts together. His inspiration is Eisenman's book on James which has some wonderful insight. There is no doubt that Stephen who is martyred in Acts is a substitute for James. When you see the clues its undeniable. The beloved disciple when you see the clues is obviously James. I have no problem with the idea in general but when Eisenman claims that Judas is James, He is just guessing. Misreading Judas starts with these guesses and doubles down on the idea . The motives of the Christians wanting to erase James are clear, James competes with them. The word antichrists was coined for those who left the roman church to go back to Jerusalem and the teachings of James. But the Gnostics loved James and couldn't have cared less what Rome thought of them so why disguise james at all? Why disguise him as Judas? When Jesus is asked in the gospel of Thomas to whom should they go after Jesus dies he answers "You are to go to James , for whom the heavens and the Earth came together" Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas, feel the need to disguise. Theres a phrase attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli when "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." Thats what I think about this book, 'It is not even wrong'. I dont say it with malice but it is a singularly bad book

Interesting. I really appreciate such a detailed and well thought out response! I agree that a good portion of it does seem to be nothing more than a hunch or an alluring "what if" that he decided to pursue and back up with evidence picked out of whatever texts he saw fit. You seem to be very knowledgeable on the religious texts and stories themselves, as well, which no doubt helped you to analyze what you were reading. You pose some pretty good questions, as well. I know not every author is active on their respective review forums, but have you considered possibly messaging them to enter a discussion with the points you hit on here?

[SavannaEGoth]

I am honestly wary about labeling anything in a relgious text or relating to a story within as fact at all, so I apologize if I sound biased, but although I like the unqiue take on the situation and admire the amount of work put into writing the book I don't think this take on the events of Judas' "betrayal" is any more credible than the original bible story itself. If I absolutely had to choose one to stand by, however, I might favor the scenario set up by the author. I enjoy giving characters/people the benefit of the doubt and seeings things from different points of view. There's a reason behind every "fall from grace," as it were. Every antagonist has a backstory and a motivation.

I found the scenario interesting as well. But then, I love a good conspiracy theory as well as giving people the benefit of the doubt, as you said. I agree that the author did seem to do his homework on this, but from the comments, all do not agree!! Since I began the discussion, I'm trying very hard to reserve judgment. I love your closing statement, so true. My oldest daughter loves to "play devil's advocate' with that particular theme. Hitler, Kahn (from Star Trek), and yes, even Lucifer among others have featured in our family discussions! Interestingly enough, since I read the book and shared parts of it with them, it's become an ongoing debate in our house!!

Whoa . . . I'm going to have to read through the comments all over again. I feel like there was a sudden, huge shift in the mood of the BoTM forum, here.

My original stance on this remains--we don't know what truly happened or what didn't happen all those years ago, and can't guarantee the authenticity of either perspective. We don't even know if the scenario up for debate ever happened. It is really interesting coming back today and reading everyone's passionate comments, though.

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I definitely feel/felt the mood shift. My first response was "O...kay. Didn't know I was going to open THIS big of a can of worms with this topic!" Seriously though, I'm liking the fact that it's spurring discussion, even if it gets a bit intense at times. As I said in an earlier response: Yes, the author is working with a translation of a translation, but one could say the same thing about the Bible. It will be interesting to see where the conversation goes. Thanks so much for stopping in and contributing!!

I think the "conspiracy theory" feeling is what might have drug me in, as well. It's such a fresh and interesting (not to mention scandalous) take on an age old story that I couldn't help but enjoying it just from the premise alone. I don't mean to be spiteful or difficult, or even disrespectful to anyone who holds these stories to be true, I just enjoy analyzing characters and their motivations. And your point about the bible being a translation of a translation is exactly what I was feeling!

For sure. Thank you so much for replying to me!