猶大福音 信唔信得過?

[以利達]

《猶大福音》古抄本鑑證
耶穌要猶大出賣他



08/04/2006

【綜合外電報道】十二門徒之一的猶大是「二五仔」，背叛耶穌；還是「義氣仔」，協助耶穌「釋放自我」？就在紀念耶穌的受難節前夕，美國首次展出《猶大福音》的古抄本及翻譯本，內文指耶穌要求猶大出賣他，助其擺脫肉身回復神性。專家稱古抄本經鑑定，保證貨真價實，是近六十年來最大考古發現，料內容將引發爭論。

美國國家地理學會前日公開展出一批遺失了一千七百年的早期基督古抄本，當中包括以科普特文寫成的《猶大福音》，其英文翻譯本亦同時展出。古抄本共有六十六頁，其中《猶大福音》佔了二十六頁。

「你將犧牲覆蓋我肉身」
《猶大福音》古抄本中一開始就說：「這是秘密記載，透露耶穌與加略人猶大在一周內的對話，三天後便是逾越節。」古抄本記載耶穌對猶大說：「你將凌駕其他門徒，因為你將犧牲覆蓋我的肉身。」學者解釋說，耶穌當時的意思是指猶大協助他擺脫肉身，即解放了耶穌的精神自我，或內在神性。

原本的《猶大福音》於公元二百年以希臘文寫成，一個世紀後，再以科普特文寫成這個被展出的《猶大福音》古抄本。不過，這份古抄本與聖經新約中合稱為四福音書的馬太、馬可、路加和約翰福音不一樣，並非以作者名字命名，所以後世未能確定其作者身份。《猶大福音》的作者相信猶大是十二門徒中，唯一明白耶穌訓並順從其旨意的人。而它只記載到猶大把耶穌交給大祭司後便結束，不像四福音書有描述耶穌被釘十字架和復活。

60年來最大考古發現
國家地理學會執行副主席加西亞（Terry Garcia）說，學者和科學家都認為這份古抄本是過去六十年來發現的最重要古代非聖經文本。他表示，這份古抄本已被證實是真實的古代基督徒旁經著作，而鑑定方法有五種，分別為放射性碳定年、墨水分析、多光譜照影術、內文比對和古字比對，其中墨水分析顯示古抄本上的墨與當代的墨水合，其上的文字亦沒有出現多次重複書寫。

加西亞表示：「這份古文獻促進了我們對早期基督時期歷史與神學觀點的了解，十分值得歷史學家、學者與神學家繼續研究。研究過程必定耗時多年，也會有許多意見交流，如今只是剛開始罷了。」

上文出自香港太陽報：
http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/news/20060408/

[clement]

《猶大福音》古抄本鑑證
耶穌要猶大出賣他

上文出自香港太陽報：
http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/news/20060408/

如果你的預設是《聖經》必對，那麼《猶大福音》當然信不過啦；
如果你的預設是越早書寫的越對，那麼《猶大福音》當然比較信不過啦；
如果你的預設是猶太必定是壞人，那麼《猶大福音》當然信不過啦。

有趣的是，看過一個傳道人的博客，他竟然全部援引古代教父的資料，借用黃牧的事情比較說，這難道不是「片面之辭」、「一家之言」嘛？

[筆是大遲]

如果你的預設是《聖經》必對，那麼《猶大福音》當然信不過啦；
如果你的預設是越早書寫的越對，那麼《猶大福音》當然比較信不過啦；
如果你的預設是猶太必定是壞人，那麼《猶大福音》當然信不過啦。

有趣的是，看過一個傳道人的博客，他竟然全部援引古代教父的資料，借用黃牧的事情比較說，這難道不是「片面之辭」、「一家之言」嘛？

若不預設那一方必對，是否猶大福音就有歷史價價？或者說，它能否提供任何有價值的資料作出公元三四十年代發生的事情呢？

Clement兄不必要從預設說起，也可以看內容。我估計它可能像其他的諾斯替文件一樣，讓我們更了解諾斯替的信仰，多於了解公元三四十年代的事。

我還是第一聽到這份文件。
其他的Gospels of Ebionites, Hebrews, Egyptians, Mary, Nazareans, Nicodemus, Peter, Philip, Savior, Thomas, Truth, James, Secret Mark, etc.都聽過，但猶大福音是第一次聽。

[clement]

若不預設那一方必對，是否猶大福音就有歷史價價？或者說，它能否提供任何有價值的資料作出公元三四十年代發生的事情呢？

Clement兄不必要從預設說起，也可以看內容。我估計它可能像其他的諾斯替文件一樣，讓我們更了解諾斯替的信仰，多於了解公元三四十年代的事。

我還是第一聽到這份文件。
其他的Gospels of Ebionites, Hebrews, Egyptians, Mary, Nazareans, Nicodemus, Peter, Philip, Savior, Thomas, Truth, James, Secret Mark, etc.都聽過，但猶大福音是第一次聽。

我對你所說的毫不反對呀。我特地從那些東西開始說，是因為看到有位傳道人煞有介事地很強調要從教父著作來批判，所以才選擇用這種方式表達吧。

諾斯替派基督徒的信仰，根本無須假定一種「歷史的」事件。

我們都說到，這是第一次聽，這可能反應出一個事實：我們少讀教父著作。 :)

[clement]

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Judas
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm

At the opposite extreme is the strange view held by the early Gnostic sect known as the Cainites ［該隱派］ described by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, c. ult.), and more fully by Tertullian (Praesc. Haeretic., xlvii), and St. Epiphanius (Haeres., xxxviii). Certain of these heretics, whose opinion has been revived by some modern writers in a more plausible form, maintained that Judas was really enlightened, and acted as he did in order that mankind might be redeemed by the death of Christ. For this reason they regarded him as worthy of gratitude and veneration. In the modern version of this theory it is suggested that Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to precipitate a crisis and hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people who would set Him free and place Him on the throne. In support of this they point to the fact that, when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he immediately repented of what he had done. But, as Strauss remarks, this repentance does not prove that the result had not been foreseen. For murderers, who have killed their victims with deliberate design, are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually done. A Catholic, in any case, cannot view these theories with favour since they are plainly repugnant to the text of Scripture and the interpretation of tradition. However difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real disciple. For, in the first place, this view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that he was chosen by Christ to be one of the Twelve. This choice, it may be safely said, implies some good qualities and the gift of no mean graces.

[ABC]

明報的報導較多些資料。值得注意的例如：

「除《猶》外，這份古抄本還包括次經的《雅各啟示錄》及《彼得致腓力書信》等卷。相關節目將於本周日在國家地理頻道電視台播出。」

[Daniel_Cheung]

明報的報導較多些資料。值得注意的例如：

「除《猶》外，這份古抄本還包括次經的《雅各啟示錄》及《彼得致腓力書信》等卷。相關節目將於本周日在國家地理頻道電視台播出。」

國家地理頻道電視台？香港有這個電視台的麼？抑或是美國的？若是美國的，我會錄下來作日後參考。

[wonggk]

國家地理頻道電視台？香港有這個電視台的麼？抑或是美國的？若是美國的，我會錄下來作日後參考。
National Geographic 是個美國的 cable channel。

[Daniel_Cheung]

National Geographic 是個美國的 cable channel。

是的，我知道，但我不知香港會否也有。

[Daniel_Cheung]

National Geographic 是個美國的 cable channel。

找到了，但原來我沒有的，要另加US$5才可以看到。要想一想　:confused:

[胖嘟嘟]

是的，我知道，但我不知香港會否也有。
我有national Geogrphic 台。我今晚會把它錄下來。

[DANIEL]

其實一直以來我都有一些疑問
我曾聽過不同牧者對神的全能性有不同的演譯。有的說神是100%完全的全知全能，有的說神知道每一個人每一個決定出現的或然率和每一個決定所帶來的後果

如果我們假設是前者
1. 既然耶穌降生是為釘十架救世人，那麼，必定有一人係"整定"出賣耶穌，整定成為萬世罪人？
2. 這算不算是神"陰"猶大，甚至是逼人犯罪？


如果是後者，如果一直沒有人出賣耶穌，那麼耶穌是否不能完成任務？救贖計劃失敗？



我近來極忙，如果未來回覆慢了，先向各位請罪

[Ming Yuen Yee]

如果我們假設是前者
1. 既然耶穌降生是為釘十架救世人，那麼，必定有一人係"整定"出賣耶穌，整定成為萬世罪人？
2. 這算不算是神"陰"猶大，甚至是逼人犯罪？


如果是後者，如果一直沒有人出賣耶穌，那麼耶穌是否不能完成任務？救贖計劃失敗？




所以Borges在“Three Versions of Judas”裡說猶大可能才是真正的基督；其實歷代也有神學家討論猶大在救贖裡的角色。

[clement]

其實一直以來我都有一些疑問
我曾聽過不同牧者對神的全能性有不同的演譯。有的說神是100%完全的全知全能，有的說神知道每一個人每一個決定出現的或然率和每一個決定所帶來的後果

如果我們假設是前者
1. 既然耶穌降生是為釘十架救世人，那麼，必定有一人係"整定"出賣耶穌，整定成為萬世罪人？
2. 這算不算是神"陰"猶大，甚至是逼人犯罪？


如果是後者，如果一直沒有人出賣耶穌，那麼耶穌是否不能完成任務？救贖計劃失敗？

近來極忙，如果未來回覆慢了，先向各位請罪

「出賣」到底是完成任務的必要條件嗎？若否，則不存在必須「出賣」的情況。就算沒有人出賣耶穌，耶穌也可以「自己送上門」給人殺掉。

傳統教義有「任憑」這個概念，你所謂的「陰」（耍弄）猶大，跟伊甸園那棵樹是否耍弄亞當，是類似的問題呀。

[Daniel_Cheung]

其實一直以來我都有一些疑問
我曾聽過不同牧者對神的全能性有不同的演譯。有的說神是100%完全的全知全能，有的說神知道每一個人每一個決定出現的或然率和每一個決定所帶來的後果

如果我們假設是前者
1. 既然耶穌降生是為釘十架救世人，那麼，必定有一人係"整定"出賣耶穌，整定成為萬世罪人？
2. 這算不算是神"陰"猶大，甚至是逼人犯罪？

如果是後者，如果一直沒有人出賣耶穌，那麼耶穌是否不能完成任務？救贖計劃失敗？

是的，有很多不同的「全能」定義。讓我列出一些：

一．「神能夠做 x」，x是任何句子。這是最多平信徒以為是對的定義，我從前在科大讀研究院時，有一位讀科學的基督徒走來聽宗教哲學課，談到「全能」，我們問神可否做這事那事，他都會亳不猶疑地說必定可以。然而，這講法是很幼稚的（可惜他不承認），即使不用那個刁難的石頭問題，我們仍可以想到很多神不能夠做的事，例如祂不能犯罪，祂不能放棄祂必然有的屬性（例如全善、無所不在），甚至，在大部份基督教神學的理解下，不能夠沒有任何形式的救贖但卻讓人們與祂和好。

二．「神能夠做任何邏輯上可能的事」，由於神犯罪，神放棄祂必然有的屬性，甚至包括沒有任何形式的救贖但卻讓人們與祂和好，都是邏輯上不可能的，所以神做不到上述事情，不算是神的全能有損。因此也不宜說是100%或95%全能的分別。

三．有人嫌「神能夠做任何邏輯上可能的事」這個仍太簡單，想出一些很複雜的，尤其為避免石頭問題。以下我只是抄一兩個出來：（你是讀數學的，應該對以下較枯燥和邏輯的寫法不會有抗拒。）

Flint and Freddoso's definition:

S is omnipotent at t in W if, and only if, for any state of affairs p and world-type-for-S Ls such that p is not a member of Ls, if there is a world W* such that:

(1) Ls is true in both W and W*, and
(2) W* shares the same history with W at t, and
(3) at t in W* someone actualizes p,

then S has the power at t in W to actualize p.

另一新近定義是Hoffman and Rosenkrantz，可在這裡第三節看到：
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

（這裡最後兩個定義，也可回應zhengzi之前有關石頭的問題。）

回到猶大的問題，我想，關鍵在於是否一定要有一個人扮演猶大在福音故事裡的角色（同樣問題適用於彼拉多和要求殺耶穌的猶太人）。這裡，我們自然要想很多可能性（或作可能世界），究竟耶穌有沒有其他可能去成就救恩，而其中是沒有猶大這角色的呢？若有，究竟神有沒有必要用那方法（或作：創造那個可能世界，使之成為真實事件）？參我在別處的#1和#5，http://www.christianroundtable.org/forum/showthread.php?p=9805#post9805


有一點值得一提的。因為你讀數學和邏輯，可能也像我一樣，有一段日子對所有conditional sentence 有一個誤解，以為全都material implications。（邏輯班的同學可以回看第六章的討論。）其實不然。

考慮以下兩個論證：

(1a) If Jesus accomplishes his salvific work, Judas is involved as a traitor.
By transposition,
(2) if Judas is not invovled as a traitor, Jesus does not accomplish his savific work.

(1b) If Jesus were to accomplish his salvific work, Judas would have been involved as a tritor.
By transposition,
(2) if Judas is not invovled as a traitor, Jesus does not accomplish his savific work.

由(1a)推論(2)是valid的，因為(1a)是material conditionals；但由(1b)推論(2)卻不是valid的，因為(1b)是counterfactual conditionals，其邏輯角色和truth tables是不同的，而邏輯哲學家對此仍未有classical logic那種共識。

(1a)和(1b)有何分別？正如我上文解釋，(1b)牽涉到可能世界，是否任何情況下，若耶穌要成就救恩，都一定會有猶大這角色。若否，(1b)就不能推論出(2)。當然，這會引申出另一個問題，就是為甚麼神要選擇有猶大出賣耶穌的世界，這是我上文略有談及的。如果用第（二）或（三）的全能定義，並認為全知不包括知道人的自由選擇，問題會容易一點解決。

[clement]

http://www.21126888.com/timetable/changePage_tt.asp?url=http://www.ngcasia.com/watch/

[mckung]

聽聞那個年代有很多用Coptic寫的書卷，而且不是在與主耶穌和猶大同一個年代寫的，似乎那些書卷可以任由人去講述。可信性不高。

[clement]

聽聞那個年代有很多用Coptic寫的書卷，而且不是在與主耶穌和猶大同一個年代寫的，似乎那些書卷可以任由人去講述。可信性不高。

成書時期是比較後，但口述傳統仍然是有的。僅僅用書寫年份來定斷，就未必看見活躍中的口述傳統。而且，科普特抄本是譯自原來的希臘文，會更早一點。

至於「似乎那些書卷可以任由人去講述，可信性不高」，對正典福音書也可以有類似的質疑。起碼，是誰人為福音書寫上「Gospel according to...」？在甚麼時候的抄本上，才開始有加入作者身份呢？我們很可能不過是在相信傳統。傳統告訴我們，摩西寫五經，傳統也告訴我們，福音書的作者是使徒。

我不是說，我們要無條件地接受這些經卷，不過可以承認的是，有不同的群體存在。大公教會傳統只是其中一個。

多馬福音雖然不是這裏的主題，但值得一提的是，有八成的內容是與福音書相符的。有人認為，這印證了口述傳統的存在。

[wilson]

1. 根據Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst的翻譯：
a. scene 1之前，形容耶穌的顯現有時是小孩。這觀點與該斯底主義的看法近似。
b. scene 1: 耶穌的笑有點輕忽之嫌。耶穌與門徒的對話形式像約翰福音的形式。問題：What is the immoral realm of Barbelo?
c. scene 2: 耶穌超越時空，到了另一世代。門徒從異象中看見耶穌。這觀點與該斯底主義的看法近似。聖殿異象：耶穌說各門徒有自己的星宿。問題：究竟文本的耶穌信甚麼？
d. scene 3: 耶穌對猶大說，他的星宿帶領他。其餘有關天使及世界的創造等。Who is Nebro, the rebel, owns 6 angels? Who is Saklas, with another 6 angels, to create Adam and Eve? Is Christ Seth? 有可能scene 3是以近東神話作背景的論述而矣。
e. Judas offer sacrifices (Jesus?) to Saklas...
這是對猶大福音文本的一點初步觀察。

2. 即使此文本成書比福音書早，也不能證實福音書以此文本為藍本。況且沒有足夠證據證實成書的日期。另外，從內容看，與福音書的整體啟示相違。若說福音書抄錄此文本。I think there is not sufficent and significance proof for this stand. :dunno:

[zhengzi]

Flint and Freddoso's definition:

S is omnipotent at t in W if, and only if, for any state of affairs p and world-type-for-S Ls such that p is not a member of Ls, if there is a world W* such that:

(1) Ls is true in both W and W*, and
(2) W* shares the same history with W at t, and
(3) at t in W* someone actualizes p,

then S has the power at t in W to actualize p.

另一新近定義是Hoffman and Rosenkrantz，可在這裡第三節看到：
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

（這裡最後兩個定義，也可回應zhengzi之前有關石頭的問題。)

請問甚麼是「world-type-for-S」 :confused:

[Daniel_Cheung]

請問甚麼是「world-type-for-S」 :confused:

噢，應該把接著的那段解釋也抄出來：
The notion of a 'world-type-for-God' refers to a set of counterfactuals of freedom, certain conditionals that may take the form 'under no circumstances will Smith freely adopt a puppy', or 'if Roberts is presented with a package, she will freely open it', so we must take the freedom of creatures on earth into account when we consider whether God possesses this form of omnipotence. There may be certain statse of affairs, such as 'Smith freely adopts a puppy', that no-one can bring about in virtue of their dependence upon a free choice that will never obtain, so we ougth not require an omnipotent being to be able to bring about some states of affairs. And the only person who can make Roberts in the above example freely open the package is Roberts herself. The world-type-for-God is the set of counterfactuals of freedom over which God has no control, because the truth-values of these counterfactuals depend upon the activities of certain specified free agents.

還有，Ls的意思是logically possible states of affairs for S.

我不作解釋了，一來太複雜，二來因為我也未認真看這些論文，有興趣的可參
Thomas Flint and Alfred Freddoso, "Maximal Power", in Freddoso ed., The Existence and Nature of God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1983), 81-113.

[rseric]

The clerk of my meeting sent me the following article. As it'd be unlikely be available on the web, I post the whole article here:

The Gospel truth
Elaine Pagels
The New York Times
Monday, April 10, 2006

The Gospel of Judas, which remained virtually unknown to us from the time it was written 1,700 years ago until its publication last week, says that when Judas Iscariot handed Jesus over to the Romans, he was acting on orders from Jesus to carry out a sacred mystery for the sake of human salvation: "Jesus said to Judas, 'Look, you have been told everything. You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.'"

For nearly 2,000 years, most people assumed that the only sources of tradition about Jesus and his disciples were the four gospels in the New Testament. But the unexpected discovery at Nag Hammadi in 1945 of more than 50 ancient Christian texts proved what church fathers said long ago: that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are only a small selection of gospels from among the dozens that circulated among early Christian groups. But now the Gospel of Judas - like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and many others - opens up new perspectives on familiar gospel stories.

Many scholars who first read these gospels had been taught that they were "heretical," which meant they were the wrong gospels. When I was introduced to them as a student, we called them "Gnostic" gospels, the name given to them nearly 2,000 years ago by Irenaeus, one of the fathers of the church, who denounced them as false and "heretical."

Yet those early Christians who loved and revered such texts did not think of themselves as heretics, but as Christians who had received not only what Jesus preached publicly, but also what he taught his disciples when they were talking privately. Many regarded these secret gospels not as radical alternatives to the New Testament Gospels, but as advanced-level teaching for those who had already received Jesus' basic message. Even the Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus explained things to certain disciples in private.

If so, Jesus would have been doing what many other rabbis did then, and most teachers do today. Many of the gospels not included in the New Testament claim to offer secret teaching: Thus the Gospel of Thomas opens, "These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down."

Irenaeus, however, insisted that Jesus did not teach any of his disciples secretly; such secret revelations, he said, were all illegitimate, and those who revered them heretics. Knowing many such gospels circulated among early Christian groups, Irenaeus wrote that "the heretics say that they have more gospels than there actually are; but really, they have no gospel that is not full of blasphemy."

Many of these secret writings, however, were still read and revered by Christians 200 years later when Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, an admirer of Irenaeus, wrote an Easter letter to Christians in Egypt. He ordered them to reject what he called those "secret, illegitimate books" and keep only 27 approved ones. The 27 he named constitute the earliest known list of the New Testament canon, which Athanasius intended above all to be a guideline for books to be read publicly in church. The New Testament Gospels, which contain much that Jesus taught in public, were the most obvious books to put on that list. The secret books were not considered suitable for beginners.

What in the Gospel of Judas, published last week by the National Geographic Society (disclosure: I was a consultant on the project), goes back to Jesus' actual teaching, and how would we know? And what else was there in the early Christian movement that we had not known before? These are some of the difficult questions that the discoveries raise for us. What is clear is that the Gospel of Judas has joined the other spectacular discoveries that are exploding the myth of a monolithic Christianity and showing how diverse and fascinating the early Christian movement really was.

Startling as the Gospel of Judas sounds, it amplifies hints we have long read in the Gospels of Mark and John that Jesus knew and even instigated the events of his passion, seeing them as part of a divine plan. Those of us who go to church may find our Easter reflections more mysterious than ever.

(Elaine Pagels, the author of "The Gnostic Gospels" and "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas," is a professor of religion at Princeton.)

[Ming Yuen Yee]

終於看了National Geographic的Gospel of Judas，不算太煽情了（以美國傳媒的標準）。此話題在香港也似乎開始熱鬧起來。怕是The Da Vinci Code效應。

我想問，類似的事件，是否基要派自食其果？如果一般的信徒不是將聖經當為是從天而降的「天書」，就不會對這些「另類」福音有如此大的反應了！我想。

多年來，百思不得其解的，就是如何向一般的信徒教導聖經的歷史性（historicity）。各位有何高見？

[clement]

我想問，類似的事件，是否基要派自食其果？如果一般的信徒不是將聖經當為是從天而降的「天書」，就不會對這些「另類」福音有如此大的反應了！我想。

多年來，百思不得其解的，就是如何向一般的信徒教導聖經的歷史性（historicity）。各位有何高見？

台灣浸信會神學院助理教授吳昶興博士有篇文章在《基督新報》中發表。在眾多回應當中，這篇文章算是相當自我反省了，相當難得，尤其可留意最後一段的開放性問題。


《猶大福音》不能動搖基督教傳統信仰
吳昶興博士
http://www.gospelherald.ca/news/edi_133.htm

[麥魚_andrew]

今天我都睇了由香港亞洲電視播放國家地理頻道電視台關於猶大福音的節目，睇完發覺大概都只是早期諾斯底派的著作，而非甚麼驚世大發現。

節目提及的一些猶大福音的內容，和我之前睇的一些的諾斯底福音內容相似。