The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text that recounts a week of discussion between Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I am not entirely sure how to comprehensively frame this text as on one hand it could be a reprinting of a close disciple of Judas as to what he overheard (Though the week is described in a way which would make one infer that the conversations were private) or it could be purely a work of early Gnostic Christians. A peculiarity to pile atop the mass is the date in which the gospel was written. It is unknown the exact origins of the original text - given this is not the original - yet carbon dating of this version of the Gospel of Judas dates it to 280 AD. Thus what I allude to, when I say that I am not sure how to comprehensively frame the Gospel of Judas, is that the origins and reasons for writing the text are to be scrutinized. Given the age of this document that makes sense, yet it proposes a differing view of the events than the church canon would like the faith to believe. From interpreting this text Judas begins to take the shape of a tragic, almost angelic, hero who was dismayed by this angel’s (Jesus of Nazareth’s) use of diminutives while talking about humanity On the topic of the angelic, the text goes to great length to describe Gnostic interpretation of angels including the 12 angels to rule the underworld, Aeons (clouds of knowledge), luminaries, a character by the name of (depending on who you ask) either Nebro or Yaldabaoth and the text goes to great lengths to format the 12 disciples as human and angelic. The text also frames Jesus as a sort of spirit and as a human; the text touches on Jesus being “born in a different generation”, and appearing and disappearing out of nowhere, while also concluding with Judas’ betrayal; stating that while Jesus had these angelic powers he could also be touched and killed like any other human. The question still to ask is why. If this is purely a gnostic text then what does that mean about this denomination of Gnostics and if it was, somehow, a true account, or as close to the truth as possible, why is there talks about the angelic interspersed with the main conversation. It seems as if this work is both stretching itself thin and attempting to make a poignant statement about a truth; it is just indecipherable which truth it is and why the passage is pulled to tear.