There can be no doubt that only the dead have not heard about the Gospel of Judas.  Like the rest of the bible, it is a manuscript centuries old and tells a story that should challenge even the most adamant of Christians.  Why is it important?

An ancient manuscript written in Egypt in 300AD purports to show that Judas Iscariot was not the betrayer who sold Jesus to his enemies for 30 pieces of silver, as the bible says.

The apocryphal account of the last days of Jesus’s life portrays Judas as a loyal disciple, who followed Jesus’s orders in handing him over to the authorities and thus allowed him to fulfil the biblical prophecies of saving mankind.

You read that correctly.  According to this new gospel, Judas did not betray Jesus but instead handed him over to the authorities only at the self-proclaimed savior’s behest.

The public display of this document and its translation certainly raises serious questions.  Since there are more than 30 separate gospels documenting the life of Jesus, why was this one left out when it predates portions of the bible and directly contradicts what is accepted as the word of some god?  Given there are more than seven times the number of gospels as are included in Christianity’s holiest of books, of greater importance is the question of who decided what would and would not be included in the foundation of this particular religion.

The first known reference to a Gospel of Judas was around 180AD, when the influential early Christian bishop Irenaeus denounced it as heretical.

By then there were many accounts of Jesus’ life and times, written by various early Christians in the 150 years after his death, in more than 30 gospels. Bishop Irenaeus helped to clarify the Christian message by arguing that there should be just four approved Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All others, including the Gospel of Judas, were collectively known as apocrypha and branded as off-limits by early Church fathers.

This is certainly a case of the faith’s founders editorializing and controlling the flow of information at hand so that followers could be given only a portion of the whole.  What a brilliant demonstration of manipulation.  Personally, I would be offended that so much of the same story was hidden from me intentionally so that I might not question the decisions of those who came before.  Understanding a sacred text is nothing more than a compilation of stories decided upon by a few men would offend and distance me.  It is inexcusable.

Why might this be so?

The Gospel of Judas turns Judas’ act of betrayal into an act of obedience,” said Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

“The sacrifice of Jesus’ body of flesh in fact becomes saving. And so for that reason, Judas emerges as the champion and he ends up being envied and even cursed and resented by the other disciples.”

Were I trying to develop my own religion, I too would find it quite attractive to squelch dissenting information that contradicted my intentions and beliefs.  Who cares if it violates the integrity of religious belief and means that blind faith must be proffered solely on the merits of what a handful of individuals centuries ago decided to be of the utmost importance.  How offensive is that?  Any Christian still breathing should jump immediately to their feet and demand the entire story without censorship or modification.

It seems to me that absolute trust in an unseen and unproven deity, belief that subjugates my thoughts and desires under the will of a being that will never directly communicate with me, should only be granted if I am given all existing evidence and documentation.  I’m sorry, but my allegiance is not for sale to anyone who only intends to give me the information supportive of their point of view.  To dedicate a life to something based on a fraction of the information available seems entirely silly and shallow.

Elaine Pagels, the Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion at Princeton University, commented: “Whether or not one agrees with it, or finds it interesting or reprehensible, it’s an enormously interesting perspective on it that some follower of Jesus in the early Christian movement obviously thought was significant.”

Is that not the very foundation of the existing gospels as well as the vast majority that were left out?

I have no tolerance for those who disprove this document with meaningless gibberish about it not being written by Judas.  Might I point out that all of the gospels exist in a place where the real author and precise time of transcription remain in question, and the entire basis of Christianity exists solely on the whim of a few men — MEN — attempting to control the fate of humanity.  The Gospel of Judas is no different: it represents the philosophical ramblings of a single man, regardless of who that man was, and is a single piece of a very large tapestry torn asunder centuries ago by selfish people proclaiming themselves capable of setting the course of all mankind (and fully documented as excluding womankind).

What precisely does manipulative mean?