Judas

Geoff Hudson — UK (5/23/2008 4:57:34 AM)

Birger Pearson wrote: "In the final narrative of the Gospel of Judas, Judas is lurking outside the room where Jesus is at prayer, presumably with the other disciples at the Last Supper. Judas is approached by some “scribes” who ask him, “Aren’t you the disciple of Jesus?” The gospel concludes with this terse comment, “He answered them as they wished. Then Judas received some money. He handed him over to them” (58:23–27). He is as guilty here as he is in the New Testament. He is surely no hero." Pearson wonders why the final narrative is terse. I suggest that the source the writer of the Gospel of Judas was using was probably the same source that Mark used for his Gospel. The guest room where Pearson imagines the other disciples are was the sanctuary where the prophets were with their leader Judas. Judas had been advising his fellow prophets to keep watch (Mk.13.34) because he was going to leave the sanctuary and go to the chief priests. He told his prophets that he was not sure that he would come back. (Mk.13.35). Then he went to the chief priests, probably to protect his fellow prophets from persecution for keeping him under guard in the sanctuary. (Mk.14.10). The chief priests were delighted to have him give himself up. They promised that they would give him a fair trial, not money. Thus there was no 'last supper' and no arrest scene on the Mount of Olives.

• • • • • • •

On the nonsense of nascent Christianity vs Pauline

Cornelius — (5/23/2008 4:28:24 AM)

One can only wonder how many times the myth of a nascent Christianity, or in this case three separate, will end. Acts does not describe a separate type of Christianity in Jerusalem. The letter by James in Acts is simply one out of tact as James himself says in there due to the influence of Moses' law from before; Paul in Acts abides by it in the case of his encounter with the Sanhedrin and has not rejected it seeing how he uses it in 1 Corinthians 5. Nor did Paul "lose out" in Antioch; he reproved Peter, and the lack of the existence of pro-Petrine yet anti-Pauline literature, the very thing on which the James theory is based through a faulty interpretation of the second chapter, which merely tries to explain the type of faith one has to have and not that salvation is of works and faith (on the contrary, 2 Peter is very pro-Pauline, and 1 Peter in my opinion is nothing like a "partial works" requirement). Galatians 2 has Paul going to the Church in Judea and presenting what he preached to the Gentiles (before his dispute with Peter so apparently he didn't turn to them because of him), and they agree with him and have nothing to add. There is no shunning of the leaders at Jerusalem; the phrase "so-called" is a typical designation and does not have to be mockery, as I know coming from more or less that part of the world. Make sure you don't follow in national geographic's footsteps.

• • • • • • •

The Varieties of Christianity - Sidebar to: Judas Iscariot Among the Gnostics

Mike McCubbin — USA (5/10/2008 11:56:13 AM)

This sidebar set out to prove the "varieties of Christianity" that existed "from the beginning", and the author did a good job except that he/she has no grasp of the facts and, therefore, the sidebar falls on its face full of distorted "truth" and unprovable statements. The author says that there was a split in the early church as described in Acts 6-7 and "The issue involved the extent to which Christians should continue to observe the Jewish Law". First, Acts chapter 7 concerns the stoning of Stephen and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Second, the issue concerned the daily distribution of food to the widows of their number, and it was easily corrected by appointing seven men to see that all were well fed. If the author can tell me how that relates to how much of the Jewish Law Christians should observe I will be interested to hear it. (James 1:27) The author then goes on to state the "fact" that "By about the year 50 there were three basic views represented by different Christian leaders". The three being James who "stressed observance of the Law", Peter, who "required certain minimal Jewish ritual requirements of gentile Christians but allowed for separate meal celebrations for Jews and gentiles; that is, the Eucharistic meal", and Paul who "taught that “Christ is the end of the Law”. If the author were to turn to Acts 15 he/she would find all of the before named leaders of the early church in the Jerusalem council. The council was discussing how much of the Jewish Law was relevant to Christians. Peter, who is described in the sidebar as the more moderate of the three, describes the Law of Moses as "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear" Acts 15:10? Moderate? I don't think so. James was described in the sidebar as wanting a strict observance of the Law. However, he says in Acts 15:19-21 that the church "should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God". Absolutely nothing in these scripture references supports the "facts" as stated by the sidebar author. We have a stated "fact" in the sidebar that Peter advocated "separate meal celebrations for Jews and gentiles; that is, the Eucharistic meal that is central in Christian worship". Here again the author assumes facts not in evidence. Galatians 2 does not state that the meal in question was the Lord's supper. Therefore, it in inappropriate for us to make that assumption. Were I to guess (not assume) what transpired I would say that Peter, while living and working among Gentiles, was eating his meals with them, which would include food items a Jew who followed the Law could not eat. The author makes the flat statement that "Paul’s views lost out" and, as a result, he took his mission to the gentiles. Paul didn't take Christianity to the gentiles because "he lost". The "yoke" of the Law was never a part of Christianity. However, Jews were not required to drop all of their past way of life because they became Christians. Paul who, by the athor's own admission taught that Jesus was the end of the Law, prayed in the Jewish temple, took a Jewish vow, and met with Jews in their Synagogue services (while preaching Jesus as the Messiah). The bottom line. Your sidebar is riddled with statements which don't stand up to truth and "facts" which originated in the author's mind. I greatly enjoy your magazine, but I would ask that you don't print something just because the author types it out. Garbage in, garbage out.

• • • • • • •

Translating "daimon"

K.W. Leslie — United States (5/2/2008 3:14:34 PM)

The way I understand it, the Greeks, Romans, and other pagans understood a "daimon" to be a minor god or personal spirit guide. Jews rightly understood such beings to be unclean spirits—unclean because they denied the one true God, or encouraged worship of themselves and pagan gods. So the National Geographic scholars' translations of "daimon" as "spirit" or "god" is not wrong from a pagan point of view, but certainly wrong from a Jewish or Christian point of view. Now the question becomes whether the gnostics were Christians or pagans—and whether we should correlate their view of what a daimon was to the Christian or pagan view.

• • • • • • •