Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas
- Oops, I guess you were posting at the same time. Anyway, yes, that
is exactly which section I meant. Obviously we can see that
the "Cainites" (assuming they existed) fit into the Sethian
category, as does this text. I don't think anyone can take the
allegations concerning praxis all that seriously, but I see no
reason to question the essential categorical qualities. It seems
likely that this is the very text that Irenaeus was talking about.
--- In email@example.com, "David Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
> You are then referring to Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 31:1b?
> Irenaeus speaks so generally that it is hard to identify the
sources of his information, but here are three quotes that seem to
> correspond in some way to the Gospel of Judas:
> Example 1:
> Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 31:1 "1a Others again declare
that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge
> that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related
to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed
> by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia
was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from
> them to herself." [Donaldson et al, _ANF_ volume 1]
> Gospel of Judas "Judas said to [him, 'Rabb]i, what kind of fruit
does this generation produce?' Jesus said, 'The souls of every
> human generation will die. When these people, however, have
completed the time of the kingdom and the spirit leaves them, their
> bodies will die but their souls will be alive, and they will be
taken up.' Judas said, 'And what will the rest of the human
> generations do?' Jesus said, 'It is impossible  to sow seed on
[rock] and harvest its fruit. [This] is also the way [ ] the
> [defiled] generation [ ] and corruptible Sophia [ ] the hand that
has created mortal people, so that their souls go up to the
> eternal realms above. [Truly] I say to you, [ ] angel [ ] power
will be able to see that [ ] these to whom [ ] holy generations
> [ ].'"
> Example 2:
> Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 31:1 "1b They declare that Judas
the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that
> he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the
mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and
> heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a
fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of
> [Donaldson et al, _ANF_ volume 1]
> Gospel of Judas "'[Let] any one of you who is [strong enough]
among human beings bring out the perfect human and stand before my
> face.' They all said, 'We have the strength.' But their spirits
did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot. He
> was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the
eyes, and he turned his face away.
> Judas [said] to him, 'I know who you are and where you have come
from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not
> worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.'"
> Example 3:
> Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 2 20:4 "4 Judas, then, the
twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering
> nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have
been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and
> inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points
which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number.
> For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon
by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the
> Gospel. But this AEon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for,
according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve
> AEons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent
forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary,] as
> having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas,
the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that AEon who
> occupies the thirtieth place?"
> Gospel of Judas "Judas said, 'Master, as you have listened to all
of them, now also listen to me. For I have seen a great vision."
> When Jesus heard this, he laughed and said to him, "You thirteenth
spirit, why do you try so hard? But speak up, and I shall bear
> with you.' [...] Judas said, 'Master, could it be that my seed is
under the control of the rulers?' Jesus answered and said to him,
> 'Come, that I [two lines missing], but that you will grieve much
when you see the kingdom and all its generation.' When he heard
> this, Judas said to him, 'What good is it that I have received it?
For you have set me apart for that generation.' Jesus answered
> and said, 'You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed
by the other generationsand you will come to rule over them. In
> the last days they will curse your ascent  to the holy
> These examples are attributed to "some of them (Gnostics)" so I am
not sure he is referring to any specific group, except "Cainites"
> I suppose.
> So, late 2nd century CE seems plausible after all.
> Dave Hindley
> Cleveland, Ohio USA
- Hey Jack
Sorry I left your post hanging there for so long. I know the
conversation has kind of moved on, but I thought now that I can I
would still jump back there and answer your point.
>>>I don't agree. Eusebius appears to have had much more commonsense and he did have the resources of Pamphilus' Library in
Carsarea. Eusebius was sympathetic to Arius and, post Nicaea I,
charged Alexander for misrepresenting Arius..which took a lot of
testicular fortitude, IMO.<<<
Understood. However, I would point out that the evidence you give
for believing Eusebius is based essentially on personal impression
and anecdote. I concede that generally that is all we have to go on
in most cases like this. My own observations about Eusebius are
generally based on equally questionable evidence ;)
For instance, I believe that Eusebius made up the whole Constantine
conversion story for political gain. I also don't write out the
possibility that he was directly involved in the Testimonium
Of course, it would be unfair to attack Eusebius in order to
question the Abgar letters, so I don't mean to do so. Just because
he may have forged other documents doesn't mean he forged these. I
have heard the theory that it was Abgar iv who forged them (obvious
motive), but again that is speculation.
I would be more interested to hear in more detail your textual
criticism of this situation. More directly Jesus' response is
obviously dependant on John, and indirectly against Thomas. The
theology it presents is obviously late (just as "churchy" as the
supposed Abgar letter). Since I have never actually seen a serious
academic critical analysis that placed any part of these letters
(whether Abgar's or Jesus' side) to a little before Eusebius (if not
by Eusebius), I am willing to hear a case for earlier dates...
though I still can't take an argument for an actual origin in Jesus