Was Judas an afterthought?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Re my own comment relating to Judas: I confess I did not read the passage carefully to refresh my memory. You may well be right. I only gave it a quick glance because my focus was on the narrative of Jesus being delivered up for crucifixion.

I'm embarrassed by the slackness of my response.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by GakuseiDon »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmThere 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.
No, it's an allusion to Peter. In AoI, Beliar descends from the firmament in the likeness of a man and becomes Nero, "a lawless king, the slayer of his mother".
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by ABuddhist »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:43 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:22 pmThere 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.
No, it's an allusion to Peter. In AoI, Beliar descends from the firmament in the likeness of a man and becomes Nero, "a lawless king, the slayer of his mother".
With all due respect, others within this thread have asserted that it refers to James (son of Zebedee), and is based upon Acts's account of his martyrdom by agents of the Roman Empire (which, within AoI, is presented as a manifestation of Beliar's rule). That having been said, I suppose that Peter fits better if one want to interpret the reference to being delivered to Beliar literally

In either case, the very vagueness of the passage and the creation within this thread of three interpretations of which apostle it refers to supports my suggestion that it should not be regarded automatically as a definitive reference to Judas's betraying Jesus.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by GakuseiDon »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:22 pmWith all due respect, others within this thread have asserted that it refers to James (son of Zebedee), and is based upon Acts's account of his martyrdom by agents of the Roman Empire (which, within AoI, is presented as a manifestation of Beliar's rule). That having been said, I suppose that Peter fits better if one want to interpret the reference to being delivered to Beliar literally
That AoI is referring to Nero and Peter is the accepted scholarship, FWIW. I'd never pick it myself. I remember being surprised when I started reading about how Nero was mentioned in AoI, even though I'd read over the English translation myself many times. "Eh? What? Where did Nero pop up?"
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:22 pmIn either case, the very vagueness of the passage and the creation within this thread of three interpretations of which apostle it refers to supports my suggestion that it should not be regarded automatically as a definitive reference to Judas's betraying Jesus.
Agreed. What I find interesting is that each suggestion does have some merit, due to the vagueness of the passages.

And God damn it (no pun intended), they were vague in those days! Even the darn interpolators were vague! All part of the fun of Bible and ancient history studies! :cheers:
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by John2 »

The expression "one of the Twelve" is what made me think of Judas (cf. Mk. 14:43: "Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared"), and being handed over to Belial reminded me of his death. But "the slayer of his mother" does sound like Nero, and if that's the case then Peter would certainly be a good fit.

What would this mean in the big picture? AoI 4 would be no earlier than the death of Peter (traditionally somewhere between 60 and 70 CE) and would not be dependent on the NT for this information.

I like the James son of Zebedee idea though. It seems like it would be simpler to think AoI 4 is based on the NT than on a hazy tradition. (But maybe it knew 1 Clement?)
Post Reply