Talk:Gospel of Judas

Athanasius (mis)quote =

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: [1] CCEL

[2] (includes the Greek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.221.88 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Carbon Date =1st half of 4th, not 280

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) Since nobody has disagreed, I am going to change the date to reflect what is in the critical editions.Christian Askeland (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I am seeing on the Nat. Geogr. website that the carbon dating is to 220-240. I still want to to go with the scholarly printed editions which I believe are taking into account the script and external evidence. I think that the best best is to reword the dating statement to put it in line with the scholarly, published materials.Christian Askeland (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Uniqueness of Codex / Controversies - moving some content

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) As there is no reason given for partly reverting this change, I have undone the reverting. I believe it is just me having not yet learnt the use of "in use" tag.  :) --QHLT (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of contents

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)

Purported?

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)

Gnosticism and the GOJ

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)

99.137.251.249 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Eight Days to Live

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)

Plug removed

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

Can someone check this for OR please

diff Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

proto-Nicene

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

Shaky terminology

"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)

I think what they meant is that the pages are on the same FOLIO. A folio is a single sheet, folded in the middle, with four 'pages', two on each side of the folio. So, you have one single sheet folio, 62 pages -- 31 'pages' (or "leaves") written on front and back (as described above), but only '13', or 26 normal "pages" remaining. Sahansdal (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing out know-nothing scholarly commentary

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 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 . I can provide that understanding to whomever wants to learn about them. Sahansdal (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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.” 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)

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)

Ha, you remind me of the scholars I take exception to, Scolaire. Why are you so adversarial? Why not help me to find a way to make Wiki better by understanding this important entry and helping me to find acceptable sources? Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines From the policy page: Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken. Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.

I read WP:Verifiability. I said I accept the rules. But there is also Ignore all rules. You already condemn me to "another forum". That smacks of censorship, and is not acceptable in my book.

If I can show that there is no "expert" who has a grasp of this subject, then a countering position should not only be allowed, but encouraged, even if it lacks the usual "verifiability". I wish there were scholars who understood this topic, but there aren't any! If you cite Jenott, then I know you are a serious student of Gnostic thought. His book isn't cheap, even though a paperback. I have it. Jenott is wrong, as are all the rest.

Jesus is answering Judas' QUESTION, 55.23: "What will those sacrificed in your Name [Word] do?" No answer is offered until 56.20-21, and "You will exceed them all for you will sacrifice the man that bears me". He tells Judas that "it will wipe out the entire race of the earthly man Adam", 55.5-6, "Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured", 56.7-8, then "no hand of a mortal human will fall upon me", 56.10-11, and "those who offer sacrifices to Saklas will [die]", 55.13-14. Only THEN does Jesus fully answer his question, "What will those baptized in your Name DO?" They will (he Judas, will, as it is singular in the text) "sacrifice *the man* that bears me" -- HIM Judas -- not Jesus. The sacrifice is spiritual, it is of the self. Gnostics sacrificed SELF. This dynamic is so widely known in Mystic teaching that it is citable in nearly any mystic text. On Scribd, for example: https://www.scribd.com/doc/30321660/Julian-Johnson-The-Path-of-the-Masters "Peer-review" in this field would mean another Master, not another scholar. They are the only ones to understand Gnosis, because they experience it daily.

Just because all scholars are so mesmerized by incorrect orthodox teaching (no different now than in the first century) is no reason for us to be. A whole pile of Christian-educated scholars isn't the equal of one mystic Master writing about Gnostic teaching: "Die to Live" by Charan Singh (http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-011-0.htm) Sahansdal (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

You are aware of the schism WITHIN the scholarly cabal writing on this? Revisionist versus consensus scholars? "Bad" versus "good" Judas?

Scholars are divided on the interpretation of the text. The first modern publication of the gospel contended that the text portrays Judas in a positive light,[27] while other scholars have asserted that Judas is presented negatively.[28] There is no consensus on how Judas is characterized in this gospel [29]

Did you not read what I said about the context of "sacrifice the man that bears me"? If I am right (and I am) that this is in answer to a question in context of a Master-in-training dialogue, I can sway the consensus: IF we have a Wikipedia-like discussion of the matter. All that is needed is reading with a little understanding of Gnosticism, something not yet in evidence. Judas will "rule" the others (46.23). Does that sound like a disgraced traitor? No one is betrayed in the narrative section, only the coda at the end -- the very last line -- which is probably a sop. The reason Judas is told by Jesus that he will not "ascend" is because he will "sacrifice the man that bears" his Master -- "the man" means HIMSELF. Tell me where you stand, and why you are not more helpful to a minority view. I'm sure you have more Wiki experience than I. So, help me! Or do you not want to? From The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers." Is it because this line of investigation might weaken your own faith? There is provision within the rules and policies of Wikipedia for informed discussion and even rule-breaking. Don't be fooled like the scholars. Others, please? Again, no one will ever understand this text until informed dissent is heard. There are better-informed 'experts' than the religious studies community. Some have written extensively on self-sacrifice in mystic teaching, but not specifically about this text. So, how to introduce their expertise? What is Wikipedia really about, anyway?Sahansdal (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Judas will "rule" the others (46.23). Does that sound like a disgraced traitor? There is no traitor Judas in the Gnostic version. No one is betrayed in the narrative section, only the coda at the end -- the very last line -- which is probably a sop. The reason Judas is told by Jesus that he will not "ascend" is because he will "sacrifice the man that bears" his Master -- "the man" means HIMSELF. Tell me where you stand, and why you are not more helpful to a minority view. I'm sure you have more Wiki experience than I. So, help me! Or do you not want to? From The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers." Is it because this line of investigation might weaken your own faith? There is provision within the rules and policies of Wikipedia for informed discussion and even rule-breaking. Don't be fooled like the scholars. Others, please? Again, no one will ever understand this text until informed dissent is heard. There are better-informed 'experts' than the religious studies community. Some have written extensively on self-sacrifice in mystic teaching, but not specifically about this text. So, how to introduce their expertise? What is Wikipedia really about, anyway?Sahansdal (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, Scolaire's revert April 8th of my deletion: "which relates the story of Jesus's death from the viewpoint of Judas.[4]" under 'Background' reinstalls a flat-out falsehood about the text of the Gospel of Judas. The "man that bears me" is JUDAS, not Jesus! Maybe someone will someday pick up a real book of Gnosticism and back me up on this. One can hope, can't they? (Start here: Science of the Soul.org) Sahansdal (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What is appropriate sourced material?

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)

Formatting in § Content :: Overview

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)

There were two, in one sentence. It was a quote. I've added quotation marks. Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite article

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)

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)

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

Copied from my userpage

"So you think you know something about the Gospel of Judas? How did you happen to notice my comment? You will have to explain to me how Gagne's know-nothing commentary is more pertinent than my informed one, given that his has even less to do with the Gospel of Judas. "His argument rests on the translation of the Greco-Coptic term "apophasis." Mine rests on the understanding of a true mystic, even if he is anonymous. (I didn't hide that fact.) The 'denial' is of the Logos, not a "declaration." The Logos is the Word, not a "declaration." Read John 1. He mistranslates the wrong part. Wiki doesn't need to be a mouthpiece for apologists, like this article is now. Gagne's comment should be removed, not mine. Sahansdal (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)"

The above is a reaction to my edit here [3]

No, very little. I haven't even read the entire WP-article (yet). I noticed it yesterday, thought it looked interesting and put it on my watchlist.

Gagne's know-nothing commentary is more pertinent in Wikipedia than your informed one because he's a published scholar. You, like me, are a pseudonymous Wikipedian, our "comments" don't belong in article-space. WP does need to be a mouthpiece for apologists if the apologists are the scholarly mainstream. Any WP-article is meant to be a summary of the reliable sources on the topic (as defined by WP's policies and guidelines) with WP:PROPORTION etc thrown in. An argument from authority if you will. Also worth considering is Wikipedia:Readers first, IMO your text wasn't very helpful in that regard (as in hard to understand).

It's possible that you are an Alfred Wegener on this topic, but if so, the know-nothing's haven't caught up with you yet, and this WP:GREATWRONG will have to wait until they do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the continents be may adrift, but this is scholarship adrift. Every single author cited in the Gospel of Judas is an orthodox apologist. Very little (I know of none) has yet been written that is informed. Even Dr. Robert Eisenman, who knows 'Judas' in Acts 1 is James does not know Judas is James inverted everywhere he appears. I tried to tell him so. Sahansdal (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Overview

What is this section based on? Is it WP-good, though uncited? Seems to me to contain a fair bit of interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alephb, don't think I didn't see you're editing again. If you're looking for something to sink your teeth into, this article could be fun. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mess with it. It is one of the better sections of this article. Whoever wrote the Overview actually did a very good job, not knowing that Judas is the sacrifice. He/she came really close with this: "The true God is gracious and thus does not demand any sacrifice." Too bad, that, like the know-nothing scholars, this person didn't realize the subtle but awesome gnostic truth of self-sacrifice .... Sahansdal (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is an english translation easily availble somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Found one:[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an incomplete one. In 2012 or so a bunch of missing fragments were found and Gregor Wurst made them available. Lance Jenott has the best translation, and April DeConick made her own contribution with, "your star has ascended [not 'passed by']" but NOT her conclusion that Judas is a bad guy because Jesus calls him "daimon." It is true as she says in her, The Thirteenth Apostle, that Judas is not a "spirit" but a 'demon' in his natural born state, but she does not realize that he transforms in the Gospel of Judas narrative by merging into his master spiritually to become the successor: "You will exceed them all, for you will sacrifice the man [Himself!] that bears me [Jesus is his master, and Judas 'bears' him spiritually]." What immediately follows is, "Your horn has been raised, Your wrath [against himself!] has been kindled, Your star has ascended!" and Your heart has grown strong." This ode to the conqueror doesn't pertain to a demon, but to a successful disciple who takes on the succession of mastership. 'Judas' is James the Just, not Judas. James is stoned by fellow disciples at 44.25-26, something that happened historically to ONLY James. The complete details of James the Just's succession are in the First Apocalypse of James and the Second Apocalypse of James -- turned into a "Betrayal of Christ" to hide James, the successor. I have seen this succession dynamic myself in India! You don't need to believe it, but I have. I know what the scholars do not, and they will never understand this thing coming from their perspective of orthodox Christian bias, because the Gnostics were the bitter opponents of the Orthodoxy then as now. That's what attracts me to this. If you can figure out how to get WP: verifiable sources for this with not a single published scholar in the know, we will make history. :) The orthodox Christian story of Christ's supposed "Betrayal" is provably tendentiously derived from the Gnostics' original story of mastership succession. (But I have been blocked at every turn, and rightly so, from posting these truths as there is no reliable sourcing at present, except for perhaps Robert Eisenman.) See now why I am so passionate about it? Sahansdal (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you've already been admonished to use indentation and failed again. I've corrected that for you. Secondly, nothing you just posted could, in any way, be construed as a WP:RS. Furthermore, if I were feeling uncharitable, I would say that your continual posting of Amazon.COM links amounts to promotion, whether it's for yourself or others. Amazon and other "shopping" commercial links are not acceptable on Wikipedia, in general, because it doesn't do any good for academic research. Thirdly, and most importantly, your rant above is polemical and has very little to do, that I can discern, for article improvement. This talk page is specifically for improving the article and not for promoting your spirituality or belief system. You are currently under scrutiny by administrators with strong support for a ban or block. I suggest that you are on your best behavior, lest we harvest more ammunition against your case. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lance Lenott[5][6] seems usable. If there's an RS that compares his translation to Nature's, that could be useful too. April DeConick's book could also be a good source.

I can understand being passionate about a subject. Without it very little would get done, but if you want to write about your WP:TRUTH on WP, you have to do it the WP way, or your passion will turn into brickwalls. You may be able to achieve some of what you want, but, in the long run, it will be that which the "WP-spirit" agrees with, which is often dry, dusty and bland stuff. We can write about stuff like Shakespeare authorship question and Roza Bal (the author of Jesus in Kashmir: The Lost Tomb spent a lot of time on WP. It may not surprise you that she is blocked), but the WP-mindset is to always make damn clear what the mainstream position is. So what one needs to enjoy WP is some passion to write about stuff the WP-way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Tchachos - Tchacos

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)

Hello IP! In the edithistory I see that the spelling was changed back by Carly682, right or wrong I don't know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

As a Gnostic text section issues

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)

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)

Significance Section

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)