Talk:Gospel of Judas

message: Many websites quote Athanasius of saying (in his 39th Festal or Easter letter, dated AD 367) "cleanse the church from all defilement." However in the letter itself I could not find this phrase. If Athanasius said it, it must be from some other work, and so should be removed from the article, as if it is evidence of a conspiracy spearheaded by the bishop to destroy copies of the Gospel of Judas. 
Links: 
 CCEL
 (includes the Greek)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.221.88 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athanasius (mis)quote =

message: I am not interested in debating the accuracy of Carbon dating, but I would point out the the Nat Geogr dating done in 2004/5 registered the document to the first half of the fourth century with the last decades of the third a possibility.  It should not read 280.  Cf. Kasser etal., The Gospel of Judas, 184; Kasser, Wurst etal., The Gospel of Judas:Critical Edition, 27.Christian Askeland (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gospel of Judas DVD produced by NGC from 2006 has two versions of the statement. The first one is the "plus or minus 50 years" (not 60) quote (as in this article) in the actual program. In the supplementary materials it has the 220-240 date range.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.221.88 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Date =1st half of 4th, not 280 

message: I am moving  the last 3 paragraphs from under "The Uniqueness..." to heading "Content" subheading "Ancient Controversy" sub-sub-heading "The Gospel of Judas itself attacking other beliefs". This seems to be a more logical place, as it obviously is what the paragraphs describe, and as it has nothing to do with manuscriptal uniqeuness.  If somebody gives good reasons, I dont mind them reverting my change.
--QHLT (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness of Codex / Controversies - moving some content 

message: I've been monitoring the discussion on this page for a couple of days now (despite the fact that it has mostly died off), and I just noticed that the article does not contain an actual summary of the gospel itself. I'll be working on putting together a section in the next couple of days that should highlight the major points. Crop and edit at will. -KriticKill (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of contents 

message: Just curious why this Gospel says "purported", while others do not. Is it because it is Gnostic? Is it because the history of it cannot be determined, or something else. I note for example that the Gospel of Luke does not say "purported." Thanks Jimaginator (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purported? 

message: After reading Pagel's and King's 2007 long essay on the GOJ, I have amended certain parts of this article to reflect current thinking on 'Gnosticism' i.e. before so-called Gnsotic texts were discovered, scholars had nothing to go on except reports in the works of church fathers who were hostile towards Gnosticism. Based on analyses of texts such as the Nag Hamadi scrolls, some scholars such as P and K argue that Gnosticism was invented by church fathers (in reality, the Christians who didn't believe in the ideas enshrined in the Nicene creed were not as monolithic or simplistic as the church fathers claimed). So, I think 'non-Nicenean' is a better term to describe these other traditions of Christianity since it does not presuppose unity of thought, as the word 'Gnosticism' does.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccohomo (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnosticism and the GOJ

message: I'm removing this paragraph from the article, where it appeared as a block quote without a citation.
Interestingly enough Iris Johansen, the US Author, published a book  called "Eight Days to Live" that incorporates as part of the plot a group of followers of the notion that Judas Iscariot only did what the Lord wanted him to do since Jesus had to die on the Cross so the Resurrection could become a reality. She also alludes to the fact that Judas refused to accept the 30 shekels that he was given to betray Jesus and the the High Priest then took the Shekels of Tyre back and ended up purchasing a plot of land North of Jerusalem (that Tourist Guides actually take visitors to the area to) and referred to it a the "Field of Blood". Whether there is any truth to this is not known to me and more contributions are needed to either substantiate or reject this. The book was published by St. Martin's Press, 2010.
The whole later part of this article gets a bit flaky and weird in my opinion, but this really seems to come out of nowehere, and doesn't seem to belong in the section. Bitbut (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight Days to Live 

message: somewhat misleading edit summary In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plug removed

message: diff Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all of the material added by that editor. Robert Wahler is a self-published author thus failing WP:RS unless he can be shown to be a recongised expert on the subject - which he isn't. He is a "life-long follower of the teachings of a true mystic Master, Maharaj Charan Singh." Any material based on this author should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone check this for OR please

message: Is this a mistake for 'pro-Nicene'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.87.175 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  proto-Nicene 

message: "the codex originally contained 31 pages, with writing on both sides; however, when it came to the market in 1999, only 13 pages remained"
Huh? The leaves of a codex are known as "leaves"; the two sides of a leaf are each known as a "page". Thus, a page has only one side and cannot have "writing on both sides".  Combirom2 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaky terminology 

message: I have been informed that the Talk Page is where major changes should begin. I am a practicing Mystic (today's 'Gnostic'). I follow the teachings of a modern Mystic Apept, Maharaj Charan Singh (1918-1990), also a published author Science of the Soul.org and University educated lawyer. Since no scholar currently commenting on the Gospel of Judas understands the first thing about Gnosticism, quite literally (that Gnostics or Mystics practice self-sacrifice, not the sacrifice of their Masters!) it remains up to us who practice it to correct their mistaken notions. There is much to do. I intend to start with the Amy Jill Levine comment in the paragraph I just edited. If I see no discussion here on this recent change, and it is reverted, I will again make the change and invite in my contribution comment a fresh discussion on this most important document.  Hopefully, Wiki editors will be more interested in getting the truth nailed down on this than the so-called scholars have been so far. Only Robert Eisenman, whom I know personally, has any comprehension of the preeminent position of James the Just in the first century, and that 'Judas' was invented to cover him up. He knows that James the Just was more important than 'Jesus', whoever that was, and unlike Jesus is attested historically (Josephus, Hegesippus, Epiphanius).  All he lacks is an understanding of mystic Mastership, and living Masters www.rssb.org. I can provide that understanding to whomever wants to learn about them. Sahansdal (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:Verifiability. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it (this principle was previously expressed on this policy page as 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth')." In other words, Wiki editors are not "more interested in getting the truth nailed down on this than the so-called scholars have been so far", and it is not "up to you to correct their mistaken notions." You may add the views of people such as Eisenman (as long as you cite them properly i.e. book title and page number) but you may not give them undue weight, you may not substitute a minority view for a mainstream view as you did here and you may not delete sourced content, as you did here and here, because you don't think the cited author "understands the first thing about Gnosticism".  Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I accept these rules. But this is GNOSTICISM, which isn't a field subject to intellectual speculation, which is all the peer-reviewed so-called "scholarship" is so far. Dr. Robert Eisenman is the only 'peer reviewed' scholar who has touched on the real interpretation of this text, and then only indirectly from his analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocrypha. I can cite his opinion that 'Judas' was James in Acts 1, but that is only peripheral to the fact that 'Judas' is a cover everywhere for James, including all ancient sources. Where does Wiki have room for the truly novel ideas? Bertrand Russell quote:  “Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.”http://thinkexist.com/quotation/even_when_the_experts_all_agree-they_may_well_be/323519.html  If Wiki is a search for the truth, I'm in. If it is only a roundup of bad ideas of ignorant people, it isn't much use as I see it. "Mystic [aka, 'Gnostic'] teaching is 'caught' - not taught". - Maharaj Charan Singh.Sahansdal (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you didn't read WP:Verifiability, then. Wikipedia does not have room for the truly novel ideas. They're known on Wikipedia as original research, and original research is against policy. Wikipedia is not a search for the truth. It is an encyclopedia. Therefore it is not going to be of use to you. You need to find another forum.  Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

text: See, "A whole pile of Christian-educated scholars isn't the equal of one mystic Master writing about Gnostic teaching" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Writing 500-word posts doesn't get around that.  Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing out know-nothing scholarly commentary 

message: Skyerise undid my deletion of the paragraph by Andre Gagne about "Apophasis" meaning "denial."  Gagne is the ONLY 'scholar' to hold this silly view. The Greek loanword 'apophasis' doesn't mean "denial." It means "not said." Look it up. There is a lot of sourced material on the Gospel of Judas available from many different scholars. It is my view that editors have a responsibility to weed out the provably unhelpful. Skyerise, why is this erroneous view so important to you or to this article? Please comment. If you can't defend your reinstating it, please remove it.Sahansdal (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is appropriate sourced material? 

message: In the overview section of the article (see here), there are [square brackets] around several words. Presumably this indicates that they're filling in omitted words, but they don't seem to be in a quote and thus look out of place. Hppavilion1 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two, in one sentence. It was a quote. I've added quotation marks.  Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting in § Content :: Overview 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Judas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109144928/http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247 to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87247
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Judas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216070514/http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196944434958 to http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196944434958
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: OK. This article is full of factual errors and ill-informed scholarly opinion. I intend to do something about it. Anybody want TO WORK WITH ME? 
In the first two lines are already two falsehoods. There are many more. I am not able to shed much light on what should be included since I am not considered a valid source, but I surely can point our factual and logical errors.  My new book details the orthodox misinterpretation by National Geographic Christian scholars: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1524627607/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk  Anyone wanting to help fix their mistakes can reach me at my website: https://judaswasjames.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You and your selfpuplished book are not sources we can use, correct, but consider WP:EXPERT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

text: You can also try to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite article 

message: Hi, some day ago I fixed a typo, or thought I did, based on e.g. the link to the Codex Tchacos 8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Tchacos), but that edit got reverted. Any reason for the revert? T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello IP! In the edithistory I see that the spelling was changed back by , right or wrong I don't know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, thx, yes, I saw that. AFAICS there should be no problem with my edit, but what do I know - perhaps it is spelled "Tchachos" in the source given, and the undo is entirely proper for that reason, if that is a proper reason, Idk. That's why I asked about it here, to avoid any strife. If no clarification is forthcoming during summer I'll probably re-edit it. T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tchachos - Tchacos 

message: The last two paragraphs of the "As a Gnostic Text" section are un-sourced and read more like Gnostic apologetics than an encyclopedia. They should be properly sourced or removed. Bgovern (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Be WP:BOLD but use your best judgement, try to find good sources if you can. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a Gnostic text section issues 

message: The Significance section mentions April DeConick's interpretation of the Gospel of Judas as a Sethian text. A couple weeks ago someone edited this to describe her challenge as "unsuccessful" and added counterarguments against her position. There were no sources cited for these arguments, so I have removed them. In general, I think we might need to rework the Significance section entirely (or perhaps even remove it), because as it stands it presents one interpretation of the Gospel which is later undermined in the Responses and Reactions section which claims "Scholars are divided on the interpretation of the text... There is no consensus on how Judas is characterized in this gospel." If the Significance section is just trying to give a brief overview of what will be discussed further in the Scholarly Debates subsection, then perhaps these paragraphs should be reworked and added to the Introduction, with the Significance section removed. I'm not sure I see what that section is for right now. 2601:985:457F:4A0:E90B:77FB:31B8:9667 (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance Section