Was Judas an afterthought?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by John2 »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:50 pm
Indeed. If the most Christian sections of the AoI were dependent upon the Gospels, then you are correct that the referencxe is almost certainly to Judas. But Roger Parvus thinks that the most Christian sections of the AoI predated the gospels (and, if I understand it correctly, may have inspired Paul) - so in such a model, that would be a narrative with no reference to Judas that may have inspired the story about Judas.

Thanks for the reference. I will see what Parvus says.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4353
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:47 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:00 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:53 am
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:56 pm In Marcion's Evangelion, there is no mention of Judas. I refer you to André Wautier's reconstruction of the Evangelion, where he gives textual evidence about the creator (not Judas) playing the role of instigator, in the Evangelion.
Where is that reconstruction available?
Not only that. There was a pdf before available with the complete text reconstructed. I have saved it and I will post it here.
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:52 pm Look forward to it.
Giuseppe post a link to it in a new thread here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8643

Here's the link https://ia601503.us.archive.org/27/item ... autier.pdf
(it's in French)
Mercy bowcoo!
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4353
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:53 pm
ascisaiah1.jpg
ascisaiah1.jpg (48.04 KiB) Viewed 212 times
I should add that Norelli in his exhaustive commentary (in Italian) on the AscIsa treats "the pocket gospel" as part of the main body and not as a later addition.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABuddhist
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by ABuddhist »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:54 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:50 pm
Indeed. If the most Christian sections of the AoI were dependent upon the Gospels, then you are correct that the referencxe is almost certainly to Judas. But Roger Parvus thinks that the most Christian sections of the AoI predated the gospels (and, if I understand it correctly, may have inspired Paul) - so in such a model, that would be a narrative with no reference to Judas that may have inspired the story about Judas.

Thanks for the reference. I will see what Parvus says.
If you want further guidance, here is the blog-post: https://vridar.org/2019/03/07/revising- ... cal-jesus/ .
John2
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by John2 »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:03 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:54 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:50 pm
Indeed. If the most Christian sections of the AoI were dependent upon the Gospels, then you are correct that the referencxe is almost certainly to Judas. But Roger Parvus thinks that the most Christian sections of the AoI predated the gospels (and, if I understand it correctly, may have inspired Paul) - so in such a model, that would be a narrative with no reference to Judas that may have inspired the story about Judas.

Thanks for the reference. I will see what Parvus says.
If you want further guidance, here is the blog-post: https://vridar.org/2019/03/07/revising- ... cal-jesus/ .

Thanks. I was just poking around Neil's site for pertinent information about Parvus, and I also found something Parvus wrote on this forum.

As you know, I think the original passion and crucifixion account was in the Vision of Isaiah (i.e., chapters 6 – 11 of the Ascension of Isaiah ... and that it was quite limited, likely consisting of no more than a few verses.


viewtopic.php?t=1525


But when does Parvus (or anyone else) date AoI 4 that contains the reference to one of the Twelve being delivered into the hands of Belial?
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@ABuddhist

Thank you for the kind words.
are you certain that his outright lying that none of the original twelve apostles betrayed Jesus (and that all remained loyal to the end and even afterwards) would have been an effective strategy?
No, I have little confidence that that would have been an effective strategy. I am unsure why you ask me that. I can't find the "outright lie" version in our host's on-line Trypho

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

nor in the Apologies. Could you please point me to the passage you're describing, or were you asking only what I would think about a hypothetical debate strategy?

@neilgodfrey
Justin narrates that all twelve were scattered at the time of Jesus's crucifixion and that Jesus then came back from the dead, convinced them that everything happened as prophesied, and sent them out to preach to the world.
The translation linked above renders the pertinent passage (at chapter 106) as follows:
... He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.
I don't see anything there one way or the other about an apostle who defected, or about the ups and downs in the staffing level of The Twelve recounted in Luke-Acts.

This is the second post where you have pointed to the phrase scattered at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. as if Justin misstates the timing of the 'scattering.' My initial reaction was that the canonical gospels disagree among themselves about that. The synoptics have a scattering at the time of Jesus's arrest, and then no male followers attend the crucifxion. John, in contrast, has Jesus negotiate safe conduct for his companions, and then The Beloved Disciple (who may or may not have been one of The Twelve) attends the crucifixion, but no other male follower.

Justin's characterization of the scattering, then, seems to me reasonable for a short harmony of these somewhat conflicting reports. On further reflection, however, it also seems to me that the sentence which contains the phrase describes the apostles changing their mind over a time interval defined by three events: Jesus's death, resurrection, and his refreshment of the apostles' recollection of his earlier teachings.

Prior to the trials, the only way the apostles could have known that there would be a crucifixion would have been that Jesus had already persuaded them that that was foretold. Justin's claim here is that the apostles were persuaded afterwards, inviting the conclusion that they were unpersuaded beforehand. At the time they fled or otherwise found some other place to be, whenever that was exactly, it probably seemed like a good idea. Then later, they repented of their decision. Plausibly that change of heart might have begun when Jesus was killed. After all, until then, he'd always been able to talk his way out of whatever danger came his way.

Thus, on this reading, the crucifixion is the beginning of their repentance for having scattered, without any commitment to when it was they scattered.

Either way the passage is parsed, that apostolic repentance was a process rather than an event, or that brevity smooths over a scrupulous conflict among the 'memoirs of the apostles,' Justin has no reason to undermine his own case by pointing to Judas.
... the story of Judas in our canonical works would be very relevant because it is presented as a fulfillment of prophecies -- and that was Justin's whole agenda: to marshall a list of fulfilled prophecies (30 pieces silver, my friend who ate and drank with me) to prove the truth of the Christian message.
Justin's agenda seems to include winning the debate. Nobody disputes that the Judas problem is relevant to the topic, but some part of a winning strategy is to emphasize that portion of the relevant which is also helpful to the cause.

I agree that if Justin had introduced Judas, then there would have been plenty of appeal to prophecy. However, how something might have been done is not a reason to have done it.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4353
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:31 am I agree that if Justin had introduced Judas, then there would have been plenty of appeal to prophecy. However, how something might have been done is not a reason to have done it.
That oversimplifies the point but I don't expect you to think it does. Let's just agree to disagree. We never do agree, do we? And I really don't have any interest in another long road of discussion that from past experience gets neither of us anywhere. ;-)

(Looking to harmonize texts is a flawed approach, in my humble opinion, and I can even refer to Daniel Schwartz for a similar approach when he wrote in another context he wrote in Reading the First Century, p. 180
For our present purposes it is enough to emphasize that we can only begin to see that story, in its fullness, if we read our texts with eyes that, when they see tensions and contradictions, tend first not to harmonize but, rather, to see conflict and change – an historian’s eyes.
To understand Justin, we first need to read exactly what he wrote, to see his views in their own terms, "in their fullness", so that when we see tensions and contradictions with other texts, we ask questions rather then jump in with the harmonizing game.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

That oversimplifies the point but I don't expect you to think it does.
I am unsure which point I am supposed to have simplified, over- or otherwise, but
Let's just agree to disagree.
Fair enough.
We never do agree, do we? And I really don't have any interest in another long road of discussion that from past experience gets neither of us anywhere. ;-)
Actually, we agree on a great deal. I have never understood, then, why ... well, for another time; another place.
Looking to harmonize texts is a flawed approach, in my humble opinion, ...
Could be, but it would be Justin, not I, who did the harmonizing if my first impression were correct.
To understand Justin, we first need to read exactly what he wrote, to see his views in their own terms, "in their fullness", so that when we see tensions and contradictions with other texts, we ask questions rather then jump in with the harmonizing game.
As I said, actually, we agree on a great deal.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:31 am I don't know if it has been noted already, but the Christian part of the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (3:13ff) seems to have no mention of Judas Iscsariot.
Of course! We DO have a narrative without a Judas. Appreciate the reminder!

There appears to be a reference to one of the Twelve being delivered into the hands of Belial in 4:2-3, and unless the Ascension (or this part f it) is independent of the NT gospels, my guess is that this is an allusion to Judas.

... Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.
How is this an allusion to Judas? Judas delivered/betrayed Jesus. But this text talks about an apostle being delivered into the hands of Beliar incarnate. "This king will persecute" the church of the apostles. The implication is, rather, that one of the 12 will be killed as a martyr. E.g. the lesser James in Acts.

The obvious connection here is with 2 Thessalonians. But the author of this bit of the Ascension is embarrassingly off his meds, since a "lawless" ruler ruling the world "since it came into being" is insane babble even by the standards of 2nd century apocalypticism.
John2
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:38 am
... Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

How is this an allusion to Judas? Judas delivered/betrayed Jesus. But this text talks about an apostle being delivered into the hands of Beliar incarnate. "This king will persecute" the church of the apostles. The implication is, rather, that one of the 12 will be killed as a martyr. E.g. the lesser James in Acts.

The obvious connection here is with 2 Thessalonians. But the author of this bit of the Ascension is embarrassingly off his meds, since a "lawless" ruler ruling the world "since it came into being" is insane babble even by the standards of 2nd century apocalypticism.


2 Thess.2:2-12 does appear to refer to the same concept (since the king is associated with Satan), but I think the underlined portion explains why Judas (or "one of the Twelve") would have been delivered into the hands of Belial (or Satan) in AoI 4.

The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.

But maybe it does refer to James the son of of Zebedee. That would make sense too, maybe even more sense, assuming that the AoI is going only by the gospels and Acts. Peter, Andrew, Matthew and Philip were "of the Twelve" and were also martyred (according to Christian traditions at least), but if the the AoI was only going by the NT (which seems likely to me) then James the son of Zebedee would be a good and perhaps better fit here. That possibility hadn't occurred to me.
Post Reply