zoofence.com

I am reading with interest two books about the “Gospel of Judas”, a recently surfaced third or fourth century copy of a gnostic text which was probably originally written in the middle of the second century. This text is perhaps best known for having been the target of a vehement attack by Irenaeus, an early “church father”, in his work Against Heresies. The two books are The Gospel of Judas and The Lost Gospel.

Gnosticism, from the Greek work gnosis for “knowledge”, was/is a tradition whose underlying premise is that enlightenment or salvation is based upon self-knowledge or self-awareness. That is, salvation is not an outer occurrence generated by outer events. It is an inner phenomenon.

The Gospel of Judas is thought to have been originally written by so-called Sethian Gnostics (they took the name from Adam & Eve’s third child, Seth, who, as they saw it, was the “good boy” unlike his nasty brothers Cain and Abel). Sethian Gnostics believed that humanity is composed of two groups, one composed of individuals who have “eternal spirits”, which upon awakening would lead to immortality, and another who did not, who enjoyed “life” only on a temporary basis and who would therefore simply die at physical death.

The thrust of the Gospel of Judas is that, among the twelve disciples, Judas Iscariot alone was a member of the first group, and that in “betraying” Jesus, he had actually done precisely what the Teacher wanted him to do: freed Jesus from the body so that he could return to the Divine. Thus, in the gospel, Jesus is quoted as saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me”. Curiously, the Gospel of Judas ends with the "betrayal". That is, the betrayal is the telling moment; the rest (the trial and crucifixion, not to mention the resurrection) is of less interest. And remember, in one of the canonical gospels, Jesus himself says, when Judas leaves the scene of the "Last Supper" to betray him, "Now is the Son glorified". Thus, it is the betrayal itself, the granting of the physical body to the worldly authorities, which is the defining moment ("Given unto Caesar what is Caesar's").

As I say, it’s interesting reading, particularly if, like me, you enjoy exploring the how’s and why’s that generated the bible we have today. We know now that numerous “gospels” were generated and enjoyed varying degrees of popularity during the first centuries, and that the Christian community was far more diverse than is taught in Sunday School. In the inevitable turf wars that ensued, lots of blood was shed and a lot of books were burned. In whatever language it may be spoken, “I am me, and you aren’t; what is mine is mine, not yours” generates the same results.

I sometimes wonder how different history might have been if another group had won those “I’m right and you’re wrong” battles. Probably not a lot.

One of the things that convinces me that the spiritual process as I understand it is real, is precisely the fact that, over the millennia on every continent in every language and culture, Teachers continue to Teach the same, identical Lesson, despite the abhorrent fact that we continue to turn their words into swords, their love into anger, their compassion into hatred. If it were all just random ideas of isolated human beings, the effort would have long ago been abandoned.

When taking Biblical classes I had a professor that I respected very much (and still do) I did not agree with him on every point, but I respected his value of good solid reasoning above all else, even if it worked against your own point of view. It was in only one area that I saw this attribute slip and that was when the subject of the gnostics came up.
I am very interested in these gospels and the people called the gnostics, despite the very negative attitude towards them and 'pagans' from most Christians of today.

I've read through the Gospel of Judas, but have not read any books with commentary, so will read these. I am very impressed with the Gospel of Thomas, have read and studied it for a few years now. It invites us to see the teachings of Jesus in a slightly different light. (The book The Gospel of THomas, presented by Hugh MCgregor Ross jumped off the shelf at me and has great paraphrases, background and notes...I recommend it highly)

Many Christrians defend the Bible as it is, with the idea that God protected the writings that ended up in it. I find the story of how these non-canonical gospels ---the Nag Hammadi library manuscripts---managed to survive and find their way to us today almost unbelievable. It is one of the most outlandish and amazing stories I've ever heard. Seems to have the hand of God involved in it too.

I completely agree that whatever group would have survived, the same type of ego driven religion would have resulted. I guess this teaches us that we always have to uncover the truth and as you said Stephen, find the strand of Reality that runs through all spiritual teachings, when the human element is involved.
btw---how great it would be to read an original book from the zoofence on the story of Judas...

I have not yet read the Gospel of Judas, but I have no problem with so-called "gnostic" literature. A Course in Miracles is gnostic, and I love it.

Gnosticism had a great deal to offer, but it "had to go" in order for the "machine" being constructed by the sucessors of the apostles to be monolithic. The third and fourth parts of Butterworth's "five m's of religion" began with Paul, solidifying the "movement," and the early church fathers, up to and including the Council of Nicea, building the religion-machine that could never in the future be changed or allowed to grow. Gnosticism did not lend itelf to such a scenario, whereas the basics of Judaic blood-sacrifice theology did. Ergo: gnosticism had to be discredited, and Pauline "revised Judiasm" established.

There is another gnostic gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, which is equally intreresting. Marcus Borg and the "Jesus Seminar" included this document in their translation of "The Five Gospels."

Namaste
Art

how great it would be to read an original book from the zoofence on the story of Judas

Here, in no particular order, are my thoughts about Judas –

1) As I wrote in the book In The Beginning, it has long been my belief that we have thoroughly misunderstood what was going on at the so-called Last Supper. And, as I read them, Jesus’ actions and comments at that event reported by the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), make that case clearly.

Simply stated, I am convinced that Jesus knew what Judas was about to do, and approved of it. What’s more, I believe that Jesus initiated it.

2) We are told in the Gospels that Jesus was able to see through us (he “told me all that I ever did” John 4:29). That rings true. One reads and hears about, and experiences, that kind of vision in all True Teachers and Gurus. Why is that? Because their separative minds, where takes place all the chatter and all the distraction in our heads, have been silenced. Self-Realized, they are restored to the One Mind. In a word, they See. To them, “we and they” are one and the same; there is, quite literally, no separation. Thus, it isn’t magic, it isn’t ESP, it isn’t even a miracle. It is simply the Nature of the Universe. To a True Teacher – and the Gospels Teacher was surely that – you and I are transparent as glass. And so was Judas. Jesus knew what was in Judas’ mind.

3) Knowing what Judas was going to do, it is inconceivable to me that Jesus would have permitted it unless (a) he wanted him to do it, and (b) he had prepared him for the consequences.

Remember, Jesus was a Teacher, not a revolutionary. His focus was on the inner, not the outer, spiritual not political. He had no ambitions. He had seen the Truth, he had become the Truth. His only interest – like every other Self-Realized Teacher or Guru I have ever come across – was to display the Truth to the world, to those of us who believe about ourselves that “I am me, and you aren’t me”. For him, it was not about “my truth vs. your truth” or “my way vs. some other way”. To be sure, the disciples undoubtedly saw it that way, and reported it that way (and we have lived it that way ever since). But to a Self-Realized Teacher or Guru, Truth is simply What Is. It does not belong to anybody because there is no body to whom it could belong!

It is impossible to “betray” such a Person. From the perspective of a Teacher or Guru, he owns nothing, wants nothing, claims nothing, even is no thing. What’s to betray? What are you going to take away from him (or her – but here, remember that from the perspective of a Self-Realized Teacher, there is no such thing as gender)? Even his life is not “mine not yours”. Here, consider Nisargadatta: "It is you that need my body to talk to you. I am not my body, nor do I need it. I am the witness only. I have no shape of my own."

4) No True Teacher or Guru would permit, much less encourage (“What you are going to do, do quickly” John 13:27), a disciple to do something as outrageous as Judas is said to have done, unless the Teacher knew that the disciple understood the True Purpose – and the ramifications – of his actions. Not that the Teacher would stop such a disciple in order to save his own life – after all, the Teacher knows he (or she) has no life, that he/she is Life itself! and that therefore death, like birth, is meaningless – no, a Teacher would intervene in order to protect the disciple from himself, from the distress and anguish his actions would bring upon himself. A True Teacher, a Good Shepherd, would do – does do – whatever is necessary to protect us from ourselves.

5) Our fixation on death generally, and on Jesus’ death specifically, is a symptom of our separative, egoic perspective (“This is my life, not yours”). Despite our protestations to the contrary, we believe Jesus was the body he seemed to be inhabiting, just as we believe we are the body we seem to be inhabiting. Accordingly, his death by crucifixion appears to us to be a disaster, and we need to blame someone for it. We certainly cannot blame Jesus, and we certainly cannot blame God; so what are we to do? That’s the position the disciples were in. Not understanding what was going on, they came to the only conclusion they could make sense of: Jesus must have been betrayed, and someone must have done it!

Let’s face it, it is in the nature of the human condition that we can prove to our own satisfaction anything we want to believe, anything we choose to believe. Thus, far too often, we come to conclusions, and then find or manufacture proof of them. I think this is what happened in the minds of those who wrote the canonical gospels (and of those who followed after them).

6) Why Judas? In all groups, perhaps particularly religious groups, it seems to be true that rivalries and jealousies abound. “And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest” (Luke 9:46). Anna and I have observed this phenomenon ourselves in groups associated with living Teachers or Gurus. We have heard comments like, “He’s the Guru’s favorite” – “She’s out of Teacher’s favor” – “I hope Guru notices me” – “Guru doesn’t like it when you do (whatever) or do not do (whatever)” .

Besides, all of the disciples were, like Jesus himself, from Galilee, all that is except Judas, who is thought to have been from Judea. Were there regional animosities between Galilee and Judea? I don’t know, but considering that they were regions inhabited by human beings, probably. And if so, they undoubtedly came into play in the relationship between the eleven and Judas.

Judas was the group’s treasurer. That suggests to me that Jesus trusted him. The other eleven witnessed that expression of trust, and probably resented it. “Why didn’t Guru pick me to be the treasurer? I'm good with money; I used to be a tax collector.” It is no stretch for me to hear the rest of them grumbling, “How come that Judean gets to keep the money!” Also, because Judas held the purse, whenever other disciples needed money to buy food, to pay the rent, to get a haircut, to hire a donkey, they had to go to Judas with their hand out. No one likes having to do that.

So, when the eleven felt the need for a villain, as they surely did when faced with the crucifixion, I expect Judas was an easy choice.

Are they likely to have been so mean, so malicious, as to blame one of their own unfairly? I would like to think not, but consider the incident when the disciples asked their Teacher for permission to burn to the ground an otherwise innocent village which had chosen not to hear him speak (Luke 9:53). Despite the halos in the Renaissance paintings, these guys were not all saints.

7) Was Judas more “spiritually advanced” than the other disciples, and therefore more likely able to perform the “betrayal” task for Jesus? I don’t know. The Gospel of Judas suggests so, but then, it too has its own agenda. Certainly we do know from the canonical gospels that the others frequently failed to understand the Teacher’s Lesson. One would like to think that there were one or two who got it; and if there were, it seems likely to me, from the testimony of the Gospels themselves, that Judas might very well have been one of them.

Again, Anna’s and my experience has been that the disciples and devotees who are most vocal, most visible, tend not to be those who have fully understood the Teacher’s Teaching. They love the Teacher, they serve the Teacher, but they perceive him or her, and the community itself, as separate from the rest of the world, and better than the rest of the world. Thus, in their minds, there remains a lot of “we vs. they”, a lot of "my guru is better than your guru". Conversely, those in whom the Teachings have settled and taken root say little and are hardly visible.

For me, that raises the question: Do we know so little about Judas because he was one of those who “say little and are hardly visible” or because the gospel writers wrote him out of their stories because of the alleged betrayal? My own personal experience suggests it could be a little of both.

8) In sum, I think Judas was framed by his fellow disciples to explain a circumstance they were unable to decipher. And, regrettably, I think it has done far more harm to us as individuals and to western civilization generally, than it did to him.

There is another gnostic gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, which is equally intreresting. Marcus Borg and the "Jesus Seminar" included this document in their translation of "The Five Gospels."

I love the work of the Jesus Seminar! And I agree, their set of gospels, The Complete Gospels, is a treasure. In it are new translations of the four canonical gospels as well as the text, or as much text as currently exists, of twenty or so others, accompanied by excellent footnotes … all done outside of the control, direction, bias, or agenda of any ecclesiastical organization. It is refreshing and enlightening reading.

As you know, the fundamental purpose of the Jesus Seminar is to discover the historical or authentic Jesus; that is, to find the man himself beneath and behind all the inevitable shrouds and trappings and distortions generated by humanity’s two thousand years of use, misuse, and abuse. Their first task was to take the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the Gospel of Thomas, and ask the question, “What did Jesus really say?” Thus, from their perspective as historians, theologians, academics of various other kinds (there are twenty or more of them), they studied the texts in an effort to determine which of the sayings attributed to Jesus are likely actually to have been his words, and which may have been improperly attributed to him either intentionally or unintentionally by the gospels’ authors, later scribes or translators, and others. The result of that initial work is The Five Gospels in which all of the spoken words attributed to Jesus in all of those gospels are color-coded for likely authenticity. There is a lot of other interesting stuff in the book, too.

I understand that the Jesus Seminar is now working on a second book in which they perform the same function as regards actions attributed to Jesus in those five gospels, attempting to answer the question, Which of the actions attributed to Jesus did he probably actually do? I look forward to it.

As I say, it is great reading … with this caveat.

From my reading, it seems that missing among the Jesus Seminar are members who are mystics or students of mysticism, members who have an understanding of Self-Realization or Union. Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels which the Jesus Seminar codes as “unlikely” seem to my reading as “highly likely” if, as I am convinced, Jesus was a Self-Realized Teacher, and speaking from that Perspective. Here are two examples: John 15 (“I am the true vine … abide in me … you did not choose me, but I chose you … where I am going you cannot come” and so on) and Matthew 16:15, “Who do you say I am?", which are coded black, meaning “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition”. Well, maybe so, but a lot of that stuff and other stuff so coded sounds to me like stuff that could easily have been said or written by Rumi, Nisargadatta, Rabbia, Eckhart, Lao Tsu, Blake, and others who are Self-Realized or who are mystics, or students of mysticism who understood the concept, and so could easily have been said by Jesus, too. Thus, the question arises: Was Jesus speaking from the perspective of a man from Galilee, or was he speaking from the perspective of the One Itself? Which "I" is at work in those remarks? I do not sense that the Jesus Seminar considered that question.

All the same, I love these books.

I’d like to add that it is entirely possible that Judas was an archetype of the advanced disciple who MUST betray his teacher, in order to equal or even surpass his teacher. After all, it was Jesus that said “I must leave in order for the Holy Ghost to enter my disciples” (paraphrase mine.) What is that if not an admittance that so long as they could continue to look upon him as the voice of God they were unable to hear the voice of God within. In this case, Judas not only served himself in his betrayal of his master, but the other disciples as well. Indeed, it would not surprise me to discover that Judas did NOT in fact betray his master, but he LEFT his master, and that was taken to be a betrayal by those who did not understand the magnitude of his act.

Considering the progressive re-writing and editing of the Bible since its inception, who knows what actually occurred, and what was embellished for any number of reasons since the beginning. When you see the interpretation and re-writing of present day living Gurus, in so short a period of time even while they are living, to accommodate those uncertainties or ambitions of the disciples, it would greatly surprise me to find that the story of Jesus had not been transformed in a similar manner from the original facts of his life and teachings.

This idea that Judas was an advanced disciple, who was leaving his Master is very intriguing. The other essays and posts you've written on this subject continually ring true to me and it makes so much sense. It especially does, because of the very painful ending with my teacher/guru.
I had never applied your ideas to Judas though, and there is much to think about here.

I've also thought lately about this idea that the message is limited by our own sight. Jesus often rebuked his disciples for not being very bright and even shows frustration with them at times. Maybe the gospels that made it into the mainstream are the ones that were written by those with more limited sight, because that is what the masses could understand. The ones written by the more advanced disciples that we have found centuries later or have been destroyed could be from those with the sight closer to Jesus. Those unable to see, of course saw these as wrong and threatening.