« Speaking of Notre Dame.. | Main | Adriana Mater »
April 06, 2006
The Gospel of Judas
Yeah, yeah...Gospel of Judas, National Geographic special. Got it.
But what's the deal? Well, it's basically another gnostic text, one of many, emerging from the Egyptian sands, making its way through the backalleys of the antiquities market, and seen, translated and intepreted, up to this point, only by people who are "on the team," so to speak. In other words, this rollout of the text, sponsored by National Geographic (which got the rights to it when the Swiss owners realized they could not sell the manuscript itself because it had been obtained illegally) , is not happening according to normal scholarly procedures, to say the least.
In short, this work is not a big deal in relationship to events of the 1st century. In fact, it is not a deal at all. It tells us about gnostic Christianity, but nothing more.
Here's a page with interesting links
Good post from Michael Barber:
This gospel was rejected so vehemently, it quickly disappeared—copies of it were not made. That explains why people got all excited a couple of decades ago when an ancient copy of the book resurfaced in Egypt. Actually, it resurfaced and then was stolen from its rightful owners. In fact, that’s the dirty little secret behind this whole story. Before any scholars could look at it, the ancient manuscript was sold unlawfully. As far as I know, National Geographic—who is publishing this book—has made no protest to this charge. They apparently are fully aware that it was stolen from Egypt.
In addition, the document has only been viewed by a handful of people. It seems that only scholars who agree with the motives of those publishing it have had a chance to look at it.
Clearly, there are a lot of problems here.
And here is a really excellent blogpost - your one-stop-shopping post on the issue - from Stromata
Once upon a time, the National Geographic Society would have been content with that, but a sober account of a 2nd Century pseudepigraphion wouldn’t make much money (just as Professor Robinson’s forthcoming study is unlikely to be a best seller). Hence, “Judas” has been tarted up and made to look like a harlot who, in the word’s of the Mail headline writer, “could threaten the very basis of Christian teaching”.
Well, no. We already knew that some early semi-Christians taught that Judas was the hero of the Gospel story, carrying out his betrayal at Christ’s behest. Related sects went further, making the serpent in the Garden of Eden the servant of the True God, conceived as the enemy of the lesser deity who created the material world and was worshiped by the Jews. These concepts weren’t credible in the 2nd Century, which is why they died out, and gain nothing merely because one of their proponents’ compositions has survived to the present day.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83480dea253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Gospel of Judas:
Comments
Ann Rodgers of the Pgh Post-Gazette has this report:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06097/680219-82.stm
Posted by: ambrose at Apr 7, 2006 12:11:08 AM
So what does Dan Brown think of the Gospel of Judas?
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at Apr 7, 2006 1:40:31 AM
They're really scraping around the bottom of the barrel.
Posted by: Adam at Apr 7, 2006 4:24:37 AM
I suppose the next runaway best seller will be The Judas Code!
Posted by: Sr Lorraine at Apr 7, 2006 8:31:29 AM
I'm beginning to understand why Amy complains of being so tired of the DVC. This morning in my office, I've been bombarded with questions about this Judas nonsense. People really eat it up. Fortunately today's short attention spans may work to our advantage.
Come soon, Lord Jesus!
Posted by: naptown at Apr 7, 2006 9:01:25 AM
The UK's Telegraph reported this: Simon Gathercole, a New Testament expert from Aberdeen University, said: "It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new. It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later. An analogy would be finding a speech said to have been written by Queen Victoria, in which she talked about her CDs."
Posted by: Ray from MN at Apr 7, 2006 9:29:57 AM
Am I correct in understanding that the Gnostic gospels, including this new find, were written about 100 years or more after those in the New Testament? If so, why would they be seen as more reliable than the accounts of those who were actually there?
I can see why archeologists and historians would be interested in the Gospel of Judas, but why anyone would consider them definitive in a theological sense just doesn't add up for me.
And the timing of the National Geographic thing seems calculated to piggyback on the DVC phenomenon, to say the least.
Posted by: Cheryl at Apr 7, 2006 10:13:10 AM
The very wording of the article title in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine echoes TDVC.
According to the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, a Gnostic sect called the Cainites (denounced by Irenaeus) honored Judas along with Cain and other OT villains for opposing the evil OT god. They claimed to have a "Gospel of Judas".
Among the dealers who tried to buy this thing was Bruce Ferrini, for whom I identified medieval MSS many, many years ago.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Apr 7, 2006 10:17:46 AM
Obviously, we know this text does not shed light on Jesus or Judas. It does shed light on the 2nd century gnostics, on the once honorable National Geographic Society, and on our modern culture's penchant to believe anything that is novel or muckraking.
At this morning's elementary school Mass, during the open question time I have after the homily, I took four questions. One was: "Is there really a Gospel of Judas?" The second was: "Why do some people say that Jesus was married?" This stuff infects our children, and we must do all in our power to present coherently the truth of the Gospel.
Posted by: Fr. John at Apr 7, 2006 11:47:19 AM
I have never understood the appeal of Gnosticism. If people actually read these documents (instead of the distorted views of Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown), they would see clearly how nutty these tracts actually are. But a good Jesuit friend thinks that most Americans today are actually Gnostics, whether they know it or not. They believe dying entails an automatic reunion with God, that there is a fundamental divide between spirit and matter, and that good works don't really matter. Look in particular at the religions invented in the United States. It's in Mormonism. In fact, one can argue that Scientology is merely the latest in a long line of nutty Gnostic sects. Salivating over the "gospel" of Judas is akin salivating over the works of L. Ron Hubbard!
Posted by: Tony A at Apr 7, 2006 11:47:39 AM
Do you ever notice that they always bring up stuff like this around Easter or Christmas? I always find that interesting.
Posted by: DK at Apr 7, 2006 11:48:23 AM
Shhh, don't tell people that there was another apostle named Judas, and that Thomas was named the Twin because he looked like Jesus, and that there was a lot of confusion of identities because of this. This was just before the black helicopters.
Oh, oh, oh, and do not tell anyone about the diet secrets of the Gnostics.
Posted by: Liam at Apr 7, 2006 12:26:24 PM
And so, an archaelogical curiosity gets the Conspiracy Hype & Spin treatment as The Real Truth THEY Don't Want You To See (TM).
Nice buildup to the Da Vinci Code movie, isn't it?
Posted by: Ken at Apr 7, 2006 12:35:52 PM
Why all the hysteria? This is a legitimate manuscipt from the beginning of the fourth century. It will not change anything in the canonical New Testament. So there is no need to get all hyped up about it. None of the people involved in the project is tryingto dismantle anyone's faith. They are involved in scholarship.
The text is actually quite interesting representing a Gnostic Christian perspective on Judas' motive and role in the batrayal of Christ. Irenaeus knew of some version of it in 180 CE. If this Coptic text is a translation of the Greek text Irenaeus refers to, then it makes Irenaeus' account more credible. That's a plus!
Already in the canonical Gospels there is speculation about why Judas betrayed Jesus. Matthew thinks his motive was money. Luke believes he was under the power of Satan. John does not speak of a motive, but rather intimates that Jesus and Judas had already known about what Judas had to do. All this text does is provide aanother later non-canonical view: Jesus asked Judas, who traditionally was close to Jesus, to hand him over because he felt that only Judas would honor his wish. After all, the question about why Judas betrayed him has been debated for centuries in Christianity, as well as has the fate of Judas.
So there is no hoax here and this find should not be likened to the DaVinci Code or the Jesus Papers. National Geographic put up some of the money to buy the manuscript, and they have a wonderful exhibit on it in DC at their headquarters. There will also be a TV special on it. They published the book, as well, which was released yesterday and is very handsome indeed. All they are trying to do by releasing it now is to recoup some of the money they spent to finance the project. Give NG a break and be grateful that they have undertaken this project which gives us a new Gnostic text that fills in some of our understanding of what Gnostic Christians thought.
No one is being asked to adopt a Gnostic belief system in this whole matter. It is merely a scholarly project, which has had to take a non-traditional route to publication because of certain obstacles presented by the provenance of the manuscript itself. No need for dark conspiracy theories here.
I honestly don't know why bloggers as those who post here and at other sites jump to hysterical conclusions and go ballistic over things like these. Go and find out what it is all about before mouting a pre-emptive attack. What has happened to calm, reasoned discussion?
Posted by: anonymous at Apr 7, 2006 12:40:59 PM
I love this blog.
Posted by: Josh at Apr 7, 2006 1:04:28 PM
Mr Anonymous. I think the problem with these things (DVC etc) are that they infect the way people think. They blend lies with partial truths so that the real truth is distorted and can't be known. They put this article on the front page of the paper and the common person thinks "it must be completely true" and starts spreading the lie. We have to fight for the truth, it's our duty as Christians.
Posted by: Richard at Apr 7, 2006 1:06:12 PM
anon,
I don't think so many bloggers here would be mounting a pre-emptive attack if the contents of this document was treated as that: just a document.I seriously doubt that the program to be aired will be a boring illumination of facts and archeological arcana; instead, it will feature NG "experts" who will call into question the validity of the Early Church.
As Amy said, NG probably knew full well this document was purloined. And instead of returning it to its rightfull owners, they are mounting a cheap publicity stunt in order to grab the headlines and make a few bucks.
Posted by: JP at Apr 7, 2006 1:09:48 PM
Is scriptual expert on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas special going to be Fr. Richard McBrien?
Posted by: Jack J. at Apr 7, 2006 1:16:51 PM
In Gustave Flaubert's "Temptation of St. Anthony," he has the following:
Anthony: Doctors, magicians, bishops, and deacons, men and phantoms, away from me! begone! Ye are all lies!The Heresiarchs: We have martyrs more martyrs than thine, prayers that are more difficult, outbursts of love more sublime, ecstasies as prolonged as thine are.
Anthony: But ye have no revelation! no proofs!
The all at once brandish in the air their rolls of papyrus, tablets of wood, scrolls of leather, rolls of woven stuff bearing inscriptions; and elbowing and pushing each other, they all shout to Anthony:
The Cerinthians: Behold the Gospel of the Hebrews!
The Marcionites: Behold the Gospel of the Lord!
The Marcosians: The Gospel of Eve!
The Eucratites: The Gospel of Thomas!
The Cainites: The Gospel of Judas!
...
Flaubert published that in 1874, about 132 years ago. It was a joke back then.
So, what's new?
Posted by: Old Zhou at Apr 7, 2006 1:33:51 PM
Richard:
I do not follow your logic. Where is the blendign of lies and partial turths in this story? It is on the front page because it is one of the most important manuscript finds in the last 60 years. For years Bush and Cheney have been telling us we went to war in Iraq because Saddam had MWDs. Just because it was on the front page not everyone believed it was true. The fact that it is news does not make any more of a claim than that. Who is calling into questin the validity of the early Church? Why not take a break and do some research before pretending to be clairvoyant. Or, are you just trying to reassure yourself by demeaning the discovery?
JP:
I don't think Amy knows the story of the acquisiton of the manuscript. The woman who believed she was the rightful owner got it back. When NG is done with it it is going to be returned to its original owner, Egypt, to be put in a museum in Cairo. It is true the early history of the manuscript is obscure and there was intrigue involved in getting into the light. the same was true with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
All will be well.
Posted by: anonymous at Apr 7, 2006 1:40:54 PM
Anonymous,
I think your own argument works against you. We live at a time when the whole notion of objective truth is widely mocked and derided. Bush and Cheney have merrily jumped on that bandwagon, and have brazenly abandoned the "reality-based community" (as recounted by an administration source to journalist Ron Suskind). Only in such an environment could they get away with their outrageous "facts". It's exactly the same for the DVC. It's incredibly obvious that Brown is talking crap. The defenders simply say its a work of fiction. But then they will also turn around with statements like "but it makes you think"! (Of course, it does not such thing, as "thinking" would immediately expose Brown for the fraud he is). This is again the result of our postmodern age, when "truth" merely depends on the viewpoint of the protagonist. George Bush, Dan Brown.... birds of a feather.
Posted by: Tony A at Apr 7, 2006 2:06:51 PM
"But a good Jesuit friend thinks that most Americans today are actually Gnostics..."
Harold Bloom, who was a self-styled gnostic before it was popular to be one, made such a case in his book The American Religion. It's provoked some reactions and counter-reactions that might interest some folk here.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Apr 7, 2006 2:15:26 PM
Regarding what anonymous wrote: I don't think the Gospel of Judas or the scholarship surrounding it is problematic for people who are scholars of the history of Gnosticism, which is a legitimate area of study within the history of Christianity, although I don't find it especially interesting. What is problematic is when media reports portray the G of J or other later heterodox texts as a challenge to orthodox faith, e.g. this quote from the NYT:
"As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.
"For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers."
There is no reason that any believer who understands what the G of J actually is should be troubled by it. The problem isn't the text itself or the publication of it; it's the temptation to portray it as a challenge to Christian tradition in order to make the story more provocative.
Posted by: capulet at Apr 7, 2006 2:38:31 PM
I for one am GLAD about all of the attention on The Da Vinci Code, the Jesus Papers, and now the Gospel of Judas. This only gives us the opportunity to share the life-giving Gospel about the REAL Jesus and the TRUE faith.
A Blessed Holy Week to all!
Posted by: Dave Wells at Apr 7, 2006 2:49:19 PM
Oh, oh, oh, and do not tell anyone about the diet secrets of the Gnostics.
I actually read these in the original Coptic once upon a time. I recall that lentils were involved.
Posted by: alkali at Apr 7, 2006 3:14:25 PM
