mountainman

Does the gospel of Judas present Jesus as a sorcerer or magician?
What's with the no eye contact from the apostles?


What is this immortal realm of Barbelo?

DCHindley

Check out the concept of "evil eye."

Ulmer, Rivka, The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature, Hoboken, N. J.: Ktav, 1994.

Dundes, A., 'Wet and Dry, the Evil Eye: An Essay in Indo-European and Semitic Worldview', Alan Dundes (ed.), In The Evil Eye: A Folklore Casebook, New York: Garland, 1981.

Do a Google search on the terms gnosticism + "evil eye" (includes the quotation marks) and you'll see that it figures prominantly in Gnostic and magical amulets.

mountainman

Dear DCHindley

The "evil eye" both existed and was warded against.
Uncommon people possessing the evil eye are described as sorcerers.
The common people are described as using amulets as a ward against it.

At this first footnote of King, Gnostics, pp. 67, 223, Lucian (apparently) says:

"It was an amulet against the evil eye:
what could be more potent than
the face of the Queen of Hell?"

It seems obvious to me that the author of the gJudas
is suggesting that Jesus possesses the evil eye, and
that as a result, none of his disciples will look at him
in the eyes. Deconick thinks gJudas is a parody.

IMO the author of gJudas is being deliberately irreverent
concerning the ultimate divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus.
Could gJudas therefore be a political tractate?


Thanks for these references, and best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The fourth century gnostics who published the codices
of Nag Hammadi and the related gJudas have only in the
last 40 years become known to the world as a result of
chance discoveries.

It is widely understood that all our previous knowledge about
the gnostics had been obtained by the very small number of
polemical bickering against them by early Christian writers
collected by Eusebius in the fourth century, at which time
Eusebius declared the gnostic books to be heretical.

Now that these tractates are being discovered and translated
historians and other interested parties are, for the very first
time perhaps since the 4th century, able to read what they
wrote. So what is the author of gJudas trying to tell the
audience by presenting Jesus as a sorcerer, and the apostles
as a spell-bound bunch?

Two questions:

(1) Is there anyone who disagrees that Jesus is being presented
in the above from gJudas, as a sorcerer? and if not ...

(2) Why is the gnostic author taking the mickey out of Jesus?

Best wishes,


Pete