The Gospel of Judas and the Eucharist

[hermeneuticgirl]

I was thinking of the opening of the Gospel of Judas where Jesus laughs at the Eucharist, and how the Gospel seems to demonize the body in favor of the spirit.

In relation to it, I just finished Elaine Pagels’ book on the Gospel of Judas. The part of Pagel’s book I thought as being particularly interesting (from the perspective of the canon) was when she connects the valorization of the spirit over the body in the Gospel of Judas to the line in the Gospel of John where it reads “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63)”.

The whole of Judas seems to be about negating the body by Judas giving Jesus the wonderful reward of death, similar to Socrates in the Phaedo who, when it is time for him to die, suggests to offer up a rooster to Asclepius who, through death, is curing him of this sickness called life. Along these lines, Xenophon also says in his Apology that Socrates wanted to die. This passage from the Gospel of John is a very interesting passage, but, due to its positioning in the Gospel of John, I am wondering if this passage also bears on the Eucharist, which is discussed just before the passage in the Gospel of John.

Maybe the point the author of Judas, with Jesus laughing at the Eucharist, saw the author of the Gospel of John making in chapter 6 is that while, in John, as Jesus explains to the Jewish people in the temple, the body and blood of Jesus, what he will do for humanity, provide real food for the soul, Jesus is not, in further response to those followers who object to the idea of consuming body and blood, and in contradistinction to the synoptics and Paul, advocating actually consuming a Eucharist like we find in the synoptics and Paul.

If the authors of John and Judas were disagreeing with the Eucharist practice, maybe this is why in the Gospel of Judas Jesus laughs at the eucharist at the beginning, and why The Gospel of John stands alone having no one eating the eucharist at the last supper.

 

[TheDoctor]

Uhm, sorry. I looked and looked through my Bible and don’t see the gospel of Judas anywhere. What translation are you using?

 

[ac_claire]

Maybe the point the author of Judas, with Jesus laughing at the Eucharist, saw the author of the Gospel of John making in chapter 6 is that while, in John, as Jesus explains to the Jewish people in the temple, the body and blood of Jesus, what he will do for humanity, provide real food for the soul, Jesus is not, in further response to those followers who object to the idea of consuming body and blood, and in contradistinction to the synoptics and Paul, advocating actually consuming a Eucharist like we find in the synoptics and Paul.

Sorry to come off like a wet blanket, but…the “Gospel of Judas” is heretical gnosticism; it’s not a canonical book and has about as much authority as any fable or fairy tale. And the Liturgy and Sacraments sub-forum isn’t the place to challenge Church teaching on the Eucharist.

You might want to re-post this in the Apologetics sub-forum.

 

[cheeto1]

Are you saying you laugh at the Eucharist? Well, I’m not sure if you have a
Bible, but “the gospel of judas” isn’t the bible.

Remember – satan entered judas. Is this the “gospel” you want to be interested in?

 

[JosieElaine]

I was under the impression that Judas went and hung himself after he tried to return the money to the High Priest and that “his bowels broke asunder”. How and when would he have written a Gospel then ? And Jesus called him “a son of perdition”. Would the Holy Spirit choose a guy like that to give the message of the Gospel of Jesus-Christ to the world ? Highly unlikely is my opinion.

 

[mwscott]

Everyone slow down. I don’t think the poster is A) challenging the canon, B) saying she laughs at the Eucharist or C) challenging the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and all of these are very serious accusations based on one post. I think she is simply opening dialogue on the contrast between this gnostic gospel and the canonical ones.

To be clear, the Gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel and is does not hold any weight whatsoever in the doctrine of the Church.

Although this may not be the place for a discussion on a gnostic gospel it was moved here so lets not be mean when a poster is simply trying to have a conversation.

EDIT: When I originally posted this it was in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, hence the comment about whether or not this was the place for this thread.

 

[ac_claire]

Everyone slow down. I don’t think the poster is A) challenging the canon, B) saying she laughs at the Eucharist or C) challenging the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and all of these are very serious accusations based on one post. I think she is simply opening dialogue on the contrast between this gnostic gospel and the canonical ones.

To be clear, the Gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel and is does not hold any weight whatsoever in the doctrine of the Church.

Although this may not be the place for a discussion on a gnostic gospel it was moved here so lets not be mean when a poster is simply trying to have a conversation.

Nobody’s being mean. There’s actually very good reason for threads to be in the correct sub-forum, and now that this one has been moved that issue is moot.

 

[Ignatius]

I was thinking of the opening of the Gospel of Judas where Jesus laughs at the Eucharist, and how the Gospel seems to demonize the body in favor of the spirit.

Since the so called gospel of Judas did not exist until the 4th century and is a Gnostic text, why are you giving it any credence at all?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

To respond to the original poster’s actual comments, I would argue that the gospel of John, while focusing on the spiritual, is also one of the most sacramental of the gospels (for instance, sacramental baptism in ch.3). His constant connection with Jesus as the passover lamb also tends to discredit this view. John seems to assume a lot of knowledge of Jewish customs, but all Jews would have been familiar with the fact that you ate the Passover lamb.

John’s entire first chapter of his gospel also seems quite intent on contrasting belief in the incarnation with gnostic spiritual only beliefs. His speaking of the words of Spirit in John 6 are best understood in a sacramental physical+spiritual sense, since otherwise it would negate the entire discourse consisting of literal language prior to it, as well as other reasons I have stated in length in another thread.

One of the reasons John wrote his gospel was as a complement to the synoptics, as is attested by a church father (can’t remember which off the op of my head) and as would seem to be indicated by the fact that John’s gospel contains events not found in the synoptics, and doesn’t rehash the same events too often.

So aside from being heretical, the gospel of Judas would seem to be off the mark in many other ways as well.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since the so called gospel of Judas did not exist until the 4th century and is a Gnostic text, why are you giving it any credence at all?

It existed earlier than that, Irenaeus in the 2nd century wrote against it.

 

[Crumpy]

The original post and discussion is way over my head.

The gnostic writings seem to imply that matter and flesh are evil, which is a negation of the declaration in Genesis that God saw all creation (in general) as good. Similarly these quotes from the Gospel of Judas also overturn the understanding in the canonical books, about the Lord’s final Passover meal with his disciples.

 

[Eucharisted]

The gnostics was a spiritual sect in the Roman Empire that attached itself to different religions, used famous figures to support its teachings, and forged writings. Christianity was speedily spreading throughout the Empire, so the gnostics began to forge gospels and put words into the mouths of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, and many others. They were able to lead astray many Christians, but the Bishops of the Church, by the Holy Spirit, were able to see through the gnostics’ tricks and did not include any of the false gospels in the Canon of the Scriptures. One of the gospels the gnostics forged was the Gospel of Judas. It is radically different from the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke John, and, like every gnostic gospel, it includes at the end the very message which gnostics wished to pass onto people: they were not good at being subtle in writing.

 

[NHInsider]

I was thinking of the opening of the Gospel of Judas where Jesus laughs at the Eucharist, and how the Gospel seems to demonize the body in favor of the spirit.

Isn’t that the fundamental “secret” of Gnosticism, that the flesh is either 1) meaningless, 2) irretreviably wicked or 3) illusionary?

In relation to it, I just finished Elaine Pagels’ book on the Gospel of Judas.

Pagels has managed to make a very good living out of studying material that was condemned as bad fiction 1500 years ago.

If the authors of John and Judas were disagreeing with the Eucharist practice, maybe this is why in the Gospel of Judas Jesus laughs at the eucharist at the beginning, and why The Gospel of John stands alone having no one eating the eucharist at the last supper.

The Gospel of John assumes that the listener/reader is familiar with the synoptics. I think it’s a stretch to suggest that he is supportive of gnostic positions, unless you are in the “John didn’t write the Johannine epistles” camp. But you’re doing a pretty good job of showing why there was a controversy over including the Johannine writings in the canon - too open to being mis-construed, basically. Thanks be to God that wiser heads prevailed!

 

[Ignatius]

It existed earlier than that, Irenaeus in the 2nd century wrote against it.

Sorry I wasn’t clear on the main point of my post, let me try again.
Since it is a false Gnostic writing not written until long after the supposed authors death, why give it any credence at all?

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry I wasn’t clear on the main point of my post, let me try again.
Since it is a false Gnostic writing not written until long after the supposed authors death, why give it any credence at all?

Just because it contains some things considered false, doesn’t mean the whole work is untrue. For example, the Protevangelium of James is not part of the canon, and was (most likely) written long after the supposed author’s death, but it’s the only early source for e.g. the names of Mary’s parents (Sts. Anne and Joachim).

 

[Corki]

Just because it contains some things considered false, doesn’t mean the whole work is untrue. For example, the Protevangelium of James is not part of the canon, and was (most likely) written long after the supposed author’s death, but it’s the only early source for e.g. the names of Mary’s parents (Sts. Anne and Joachim).

The Protoevangelium of James isn’t considered Scripture either. It isn’t so much that everything in a document is false. It is that the document itself does not belong to the body of Sacred and inspired Scripture.