Re: [XTalk] More on the Gospel of Judas... Oops. Maybe it was misread.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
> Robert Griffin wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
> > <jgibson000@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Griffin wrote:
> > >
> > > > PS I'm somewhat surprised that the argument between the
> > > > doesn't include the question of whether this book is theGospel of
> > > > Judas used by the Cainites.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/04/judas-
> > > >
> > >
> > > What makes you think this isn't included?
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Gibson
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
> > > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
> > > Chicago, Illinois
> > > e-mail jgibson000@
> > The CBC News story at
> > scholars.html entirely ignores the fact that if this is indeed theis
> > Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus, Judas is likely to be
> > presented as a spiritual revolutionary and hero rather than as a
> > villain or a dupe. If we have enough of the document, and if it
> > indeed the Cainite Gospel of Judas, then I would expect to findsome
> > clearer evidences of Cainite (or at least Gnostic) teachings.the source of
> All this does is point out that relying on what the media says as
> your claims for what scholars have or have not said with respect tothe Gospel of
> Judas (or any other topic) is as hazardous as it ismethodologically unsound.
>scholars have and
> I suggest that before you make such global claims about what
> have not said, you avoid relying for your claims on second handreports of what
> they have or have not said, and instead go straight to the works ofthe scholars
> themselves.Correction taken to heart. Since I don't work in the field, and am
> Jeffrey Gibson
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
> Chicago, Illinois
> e-mail jgibson000@...
short on both money and time, I will ask the list community if the
current discussion over re-assessment of the role of Judas in the
betrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of Judas involves also a re-
assessment of whether a) this manuscript is indeed a copy of the
Cainite Gospel of Judas and/or b) Irenaeus et al. actually
misunderstood the Cainite Gospel of Judas.
My own observations are as follows:
The three characteristic Gnostic figures in the text of the Gospel of
Judas (Barbelos, Saklas, Ialdabaoth) are not specifically Cainite,
and I found no occurence of the word/name 'Hysteros' (referring to
the prime Cainite diety, according to Irenaeus, if I read him
correctly). So, from that point of view, this work might not be the
same that Irenaeus wrote about. On the other hand, it is clearly a
Gnostic document, and equally clearly treats Judas in roughly the
same manner as Thomas is treated in the Gospel of Thomas.
Thanks for any input.