Thanks. But unfortunately that pdf only contains a discussion by Wautier and does not contain a reconstruction of M's gospel.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:41 amHere? http://misraim3.free.fr/gnosticisme/l_e ... ionite.pdf
Was Judas an afterthought?
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
Look forward to it.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:00 amNot only that. There was a pdf before available with the complete text reconstructed. I have saved it and I will post it here.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:41 amHere? http://misraim3.free.fr/gnosticisme/l_e ... ionite.pdf
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
Justin's narrative allows no room for a replacement of one of the twelve by lot. 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.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:20 pm There were twelve apostles who were sent out from Jerusalem, with someone being chosen by lot to replace Judas, according to Acts.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:20 pm
It may be that Justin was 'hiding' the story of Judas, but I don't think it is even that. Justin doesn't mention Judas because Judas is simply irrelevant to any of his arguments.
Andrew made the same suggestion but as I pointed out in a reply then, 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.
The Gospel of Peter likewise appears to be unaware of a Judas. All the discipels, from what I recall, are together in fear after the crucifixion. And Justin does seem to know a narrative that overlaps with GPeter (his focus on Herod's guilt, My Power being the words of Jesus on the cross, reference to nails, etc).
(Of course, GPeter is with good reasons considered to post-date our canonical gospels.)
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pmOf 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.
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
With all due respect, such an oblique reference, although compatible with the narrative about Judas, could be compatible with other types of betrayal. For example, Devadatta betrayed Shakyamuni Buddha by trying to lead monastics and laity to follow him rather than the Buddha his spiritual master, and tried to kill the Buddha, but did not, unlike Judas supposedly did, betray his spiritual master to an army that captured and killed the spiritual master (although Devadatta supposedly used royal money to hire mercenaries to kill the Buddha). So, my point is that a disciple's betraying a spiritual master can take many forms, not only the form in which Judas betrayed.John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmneilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pmOf 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.
As a final point, the language that you quote does not even mention a betrayal, but only the delivery of an apostle to Beliar - which theoretically could refer to the apostle's martyrdom or apostasy without betraying Jesus as Judas did.
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
ABuddhist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:36 pmWith all due respect, such an oblique reference, although compatible with the narrative about Judas, could be compatible with other types of betrayal. For example, Devadatta betrayed Shakyamuni Buddha by trying to lead monastics and laity to follow him rather than the Buddha his spiritual master, and tried to kill the Buddha, but did not, unlike Judas supposedly did, betray his spiritual master to an army that captured and killed the spiritual master (although Devadatta supposedly used royal money to hire mercenaries to kill the Buddha). So, my point is that a disciple's betraying a spiritual master can take many forms, not only the form in which Judas betrayed.John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmneilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pmOf 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.
As a final point, the language that you quote does not even mention a betrayal, but only the delivery of an apostle to Beliar - which theoretically could refer to the apostle's martyrdom or apostasy without betraying Jesus as Judas did.
Well, right. That is why unless it can be demonstrated that the AoI is independent of the NT gospels, my guess would be that this refers to Judas. Why else would one of the Twelve be handed over to Belial? We can imagine other scenarios, of course, but Judas works for me here.
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:00 amNot only that. There was a pdf before available with the complete text reconstructed. I have saved it and I will post it here.
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)
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
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.John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:41 pmWell, right. That is why unless it can be demonstrated that the AoI is independent of the NT gospels, my guess would be that this refers to Judas. Why else would one of the Twelve be handed over to Belial? We can imagine other scenarios, of course, but Judas works for me here.ABuddhist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:36 pmWith all due respect, such an oblique reference, although compatible with the narrative about Judas, could be compatible with other types of betrayal. For example, Devadatta betrayed Shakyamuni Buddha by trying to lead monastics and laity to follow him rather than the Buddha his spiritual master, and tried to kill the Buddha, but did not, unlike Judas supposedly did, betray his spiritual master to an army that captured and killed the spiritual master (although Devadatta supposedly used royal money to hire mercenaries to kill the Buddha). So, my point is that a disciple's betraying a spiritual master can take many forms, not only the form in which Judas betrayed.John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmneilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pmOf 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.
As a final point, the language that you quote does not even mention a betrayal, but only the delivery of an apostle to Beliar - which theoretically could refer to the apostle's martyrdom or apostasy without betraying Jesus as Judas did.
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Was Judas an afterthought?
Yes, indeed. Thanks for pointing that detail out. For context, here is a diagram I made up to help sort out the different views of what's what in the AscIs some time ago for a blogpost:John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmneilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:54 pmOf 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.
That Judas references you point out is separate by some degrees from the narrative in the second half where we read that the Devil stirred up the Israelites to crucify him -- a narrative that sounds like it would make an excellent fit for a piece now missing from the Gospel of Peter:
The disciples are left untouched in this narrative.And when He had grown up He worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem, if). And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him11, not knowing who He was, ""and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol). -- AscIs 11:18-19