Truth or Fable?

[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. At

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!

lol

33:6–14: “When he [Jesus, the Apophasis Logos] appeared upon the earth, he performed signs and great wonders for the salvation of humanity. While some were walking in the path of righteousness and others were walking in their transgressions, the twelve disciples were called.”
This is probably one of the least controversial verses but taken at face value the Bible says the same thing. The brackets are the author's and we know Judas is speaking of Jesus. After this passage the author starts speaking of the mention of other things like Passover etc. There is No Context for this as there is for who he is speaking of. Later on I found contextually, Jesus tells Judas that he knows that Judas has bertayed him. The author says that it isn't so and backs up his conceptualization of this idea by Mystic Theory.

[Kelyn]

I appreciate you taking the time to come back. Thank you so much for the explanation!

[Kelyn]

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!

You're welcome! I don't think anyone is meaning to be disrespectful, or at least I hope not. Thanks so much for coming back.

[Kelyn]

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

Thanks for stopping by! One question...why not?

[colorsparkle]

I think anyone could scramble to find any information that supports a certain belief, so just because he wrote this book, it doesn’t automatically prove that only his opinion is true.

[Claudia DL]

A mystical line of prophets is interesting and that makes me lean closer to being convinced. Jesus needed immortality with his work not being done quite yet. But immortality based on his spirit living on, watching down on all of us or through reincarnations? Reincarnations are seen as truth and taken for granted in the east, India and Tibet namely. But that was not to come to pass. The culture Jesus was in as well as the one that adopted Christianity never read "the kingdom of heaven" as a state of being instead of a physical place among the clouds, despite Jesus very clearly saying the kingdom is on earth. Gnostic tend to read the Gospels a bit more in a Buddhist fashion so I see where it comes from.

I see the historical truth there. Jesus is definitely influenced by Indian culture in his spirituality, so I can see Jesus getting Judas and others ready to take his place. But truth or fable? What do you think is real, heaven or reincarnations? That's based on your religious and spiritual views, not history.

[JPalomares]

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.

True enough
The difference I'd raise here, however, is that we do have a large array of early documents that show us portions of the Bible in various states of creation and editing. We can show when, and occasionally why, changes were made and pieces were added or deleted - and, unless I'm very much mistaken, we do have multiple sources in the original languages for every canon book. Our one and only copy of the Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, is incomplete and, seemingly, exists only as a translation - meaning we can't even be sure it's a faithful rendering of the original. For all we know of the Gospel of Judas, the translator could have pulled a Marcion on us - heavily editing the document until it agreed with their own doctrine - or, if it is in fact the original work and not a translation, then the only copy we have is still some two hundred years younger than the earliest copy of Mark we've found. The problem with the Gospel of Judas is the sheer and terrible lack of data we have to work with.

[Kelyn]

I think anyone could scramble to find any information that supports a certain belief, so just because he wrote this book, it doesn’t automatically prove that only his opinion is true.

Too true. Thus we tell children "I could say the moon is made of green cheese, but that wouldn't make it true." Or at least that's something I was told as a child (and told my kids) to teach the difference between truth and opinion. Thanks so much for stopping in and commenting!

[Kelyn]

A mystical line of prophets is interesting and that makes me lean closer to being convinced. Jesus needed immortality with his work not being done quite yet. But immortality based on his spirit living on, watching down on all of us or through reincarnations? Reincarnations are seen as truth and taken for granted in the east, India and Tibet namely. But that was not to come to pass. The culture Jesus was in as well as the one that adopted Christianity never read "the kingdom of heaven" as a state of being instead of a physical place among the clouds, despite Jesus very clearly saying the kingdom is on earth. Gnostic tend to read the Gospels a bit more in a Buddhist fashion so I see where it comes from.

I see the historical truth there. Jesus is definitely influenced by Indian culture in his spirituality, so I can see Jesus getting Judas and others ready to take his place. But truth or fable? What do you think is real, heaven or reincarnations? That's based on your religious and spiritual views, not history.

----------------------------

Reincarnations are seen as truth and taken for granted in the east, India and Tibet namely. But that was not to come to pass. The culture Jesus was in as well as the one that adopted Christianity never read "the kingdom of heaven" as a state of being instead of a physical place among the clouds, despite Jesus very clearly saying the kingdom is on earth.

It is an intriguing theory. The differences (as well as the similarities) between belief systems fascinate me. You have to wonder why they didn't or couldn't understand the concept considering that one of the very things that seemed to make them angry was that he 'refused' to be the earthly king/warrior that they wanted him to be.

What do you think is real, heaven or reincarnations? That's based on your religious and spiritual views, not history.

Ultimately, yes. They are based on our decisions on what we wish to believe. But where do those base beliefs that we choose amongst come from then? Our parents (or mentors, spiritual elders, etc.) and their predecessors back and back and back had to learn them somewhere to be able to introduce them to us.
Thanks so much for coming by and contributing to the conversation!

[Kelyn]

...we do have a large array of early documents that show us portions of the Bible in various states of creation and editing. We can show when, and occasionally why, changes were made and pieces were added or deleted - and, unless I'm very much mistaken, we do have multiple sources in the original languages for every canon book.

I've read the same. Call me jaded, but I tend toward the saying "I'm from Missouri, show me." Unfortunately, even if they did show me, I couldn't read them. As far as them being changed, it's really the 'why' I'm curious about rather than the 'when.' I accept that they have been changed, that's part of the problem. Why did they get changed? Who's decision was it? (Please, don't say God's ) What (if anything) did this mysterious 'they' put back in instead? And, since basically it's only the priests and scholar's who changed/translated them who can actually read them, (again, call me jaded) how do we know that they're 'true' translations. Not just the most recent but just imagine how many times they've been translated. From Hebrew to Latin to Greek to Italian to French to English, etc. and then from Old English to Middle English and from there to multiple instances of 'translations' for Baptist, Catholic, and every other conceivable branch of Christianity. For instance, the Catholic Bible (and others) contains books as 'canon' that Baptists, for instance, consider the Apocrypha. Ever play the game "Telephone" with a group when you were a kid? If so, you know how easily 'translations' can get garbled and come out wrong. Sorry for the rant, this translation thing has been a pet peeve of mine since I was around twelve and no-one could give me a straight answer.

"...Our one and only copy of the Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, is incomplete and, seemingly, exists only as a translation - meaning we can't even be sure it's a faithful rendering of the original."

...see above rant.

"...if it is, in fact, the original work and not a translation, then the only copy we have is still some two hundred years younger than the earliest copy of Mark we've found. The problem with the Gospel of Judas is the sheer and terrible lack of data we have to work with.

True, but they didn't exactly stop talking about Jesus with the conclusion of Mark. Revelations was written only 74 years before The Gospel of Judas was. But, I do agree with your last statement, there is a severe lack of data.

Thank you so much for adding to the conversation. Sorry if I ranted too much.

[JPalomares]

Doncha worry about ranting - it's the nature of religious discussion!

As far as them being changed, it's really the 'why' I'm curious about rather than the 'when.' I accept that they have been changed, that's part of the problem. Why did they get changed? Who's decision was it? (Please, don't say God's ) What (if anything) did this mysterious 'they' put back in instead?

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.)

Some of the most notable additions come from the time of the Babylonian Exile, when the ancient Hebrews were looking for answers as to why their God had seemingly abandoned them (again) to captivity in a foreign land. 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.

And, since basically it's only the priests and scholar's who changed/translated them who can actually read them, (again, call me jaded) how do we know that they're 'true' translations. Not just the most recent but just imagine how many times they've been translated. From Hebrew to Latin to Greek to Italian to French to English, etc. and then from Old English to Middle English and from there to multiple instances of 'translations' for Baptist, Catholic, and every other conceivable branch of Christianity. For instance, the Catholic Bible (and others) contains books as 'canon' that Baptists, for instance, consider the Apocrypha. Ever play the game "Telephone" with a group when you were a kid? If so, you know how easily 'translations' can get garbled and come out wrong. Sorry for the rant, this translation thing has been a pet peeve of mine since I was around twelve and no-one could give me a straight answer.

Damn good question. 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.

The Apocrypha/Deuterocanon is a whole 'nother can of worms. I'll keep it brief and say that these are books cut from several Christianities and from Judaism after the Christian Canon was established and on the strength of the idea that they had little to do with religion - and are not as well represented by source documents as the other books. First and Second Maccabees, for example, do not have existing Hebrew sources.

True, but they didn't exactly stop talking about Jesus with the conclusion of Mark. Revelations was written only 74 years before The Gospel of Judas was.

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.

[JPalomares]

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 may be given to rant? >_>;
I'm in this forum because the study of religion is a particular enjoyment of mine.
Regarding the book, the author is a defender of the modern Gnostic tradition with training in modern Gnostic belief, but not in the ancient Gnosticism from whence the Gospel of Judas springs, nor in the study of religion as a cultural/historical artifact. This lattermost point is the key flaw in his book. (And, I confess, it irks me terribly. <_>)

[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

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?

The reason I don't think it would be helpful is twofold. First the author makes clear he has no respect for the actual experts in the field. So if he can't take them seriously there is no way he'll take my criticisms to heart. The second reason is that ,let me be honest here, in my opinion this book has the historical validity of a comic book. Almost every claim the author makes is problematic and unsubstantiated. The book is like talking to a greatful dead fan on acid about how "like Christianity man is bogus and its trying to hide the real message of Jesus like you know we're all god but the church doesn't want you to know that, you know?"

[hugogomez]

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.

[Amanda Nicole Newton]

There are so many different opinions who knows what is or isn't true. I feel people should believe in what satisfies them and makes them want to do and live the best way in life.

I completely agree!!