IS THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS TRUE?
In April, 2006, the National Geographic Society of Washington, DC, held a press conference in which they announced the coming publication of a document they called the Gospel of Judas. This document, they stated, would be published in English translation (Kasser), as well as being the subject of the Easter edition of National Geographic magazine. Also, a DVD and television documentary would be produced by the National Geographic Society.
In both the press conference itself and in resulting coverage, the Gospel of Judas is presented as a dramatic and important discovery which, like the (equally fictitious) Da Vinci Code, threatened the "official" doctrine of the church by presenting an alternative account of the Gospel story. In this one, we are told, Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus in the canonical gospel accounts, is seen as the hero and one who was given more revelation and played a more significant part than any of the other apostles. In this account, Judas hands Jesus over to the Jewish authorities only because Jesus Himself had actually instructed him to—rather than because of his greed, as is portrayed in the canonical gospel accounts. In the press reports (New York Times
Is this in fact the case? Does the Gospel of Judas really undermine and invalidate the traditional gospel accounts of the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ? Should this document cause Christians to re-evaluate their faith, and does this document indeed give any valuable insight into the relationship between Christ and Judas Iscariot? In this preliminary article some answers will be provided to these immediate questions to determine whether the Gospel of Judas does indeed provide Christians with any cause for concern.
The History of the Gospel of Judas
In actual fact, knowledge that there was a document called the Gospel of Judas and of its basic content has always been known. The early Christian writer Irenae-us mentioned it in his work, Against Heresies, in which he attacked the various unbiblical doctrines which were being taught by various groups in his time. Writing in about AD 180, Irenaeus describes a group called the Cainites who revered various characters in the Bible including Cain, Esau, Korah, and Judas whom the Biblical text described as evil. This Gnostic sect, Irenaeus tells us, taught that these were all actually doing God's will, and in reference to Judas he informs us:
They claim that the betrayer Judas was well informed of all these things, and that he, knowing the truth as none other, brought about the mystery of the betrayal ... they produced a spurious account of this sort, which they call the Gospel of Judas (Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I. 31. 1).
When this statement is compared to the text which has recently been published (see below) there is little doubt that the two "gospels" of Judas are indeed one and the same document.
The manuscript now under discussion was uncovered in a cave near El-Minya in
After many vicissitudes and
languishing for many years in a safety deposit box in the
The Nature and Significance of the Gospel of Judas
The opening words of the Gospel of Judas instantly confirm Irenaeus' identification of it as a Gnostic document. The opening words are: "The secret account of the revelation Jesus spoke ... to Judas Iscariot."
These words and terms like them are extremely common among Gnostic literature. Gnostics taught that there was a special secret knowledge (the term Gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning "knowledge") that was communicated over and above the revelation that was given in the Bible. The nature of that knowledge varied greatly amongst the different Gnostic sects, but was almost invariably characterized as "secret" and/or "hidden," which the Gnostic text or sect now purported to reveal.
These Gnostic documents come from at least the second century AD—at the time the Gnostic sects were rapidly expanding. There is no evidence that any of these texts were in existence before about AD 130, and therefore they were all written well after the writing of the canonical gospel accounts. While they are certainly useful for determining the doctrines and practices of these sects, they reveal to us nothing about the origins of Christianity and the doctrines of the first century AD church (McKechnie 2001). There is therefore no reason to assert that the Gospel of Judas can tell us anything about the belief or practice of the
mainstream church of the first century AD—or
indeed of the historical reality of Judas and his relationship with the Lord.
Irenaeus is indeed frequently derided for allegedly suppressing "alternative" accounts of the beginnings of Christianity while promoting those that were later accepted as canonical. This idea is related to the concept that the church determined the canon of Scripture, accepting some books while rejecting other equally important books. While the theory might sound good, the fact is that Irenaeus and others defended and promoted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and rejected other books (including the Gospel of Judas) not because of doctrinal preference but because of the evident superiority of the canonical books.
While those that were accepted are attested from a very early stage and are cited and attested in early Christian writings in the late first and early second centuries AD, the Gnostic writings are unattested in this period. While the former enjoyed widespread acceptance among all the early churches, the latter generally did not receive acceptance from any but the Gnostic sect that originated them. Certainly there is no evidence whatever that the Gospel of Judas ever received any acceptance beyond the narrow and rather strange Cainite sect.
Besides its contradiction of the canonical gospel accounts of the betrayal of Christ and its lack of attestation and acceptance among the early Christian community, there are several other pertinent points to ask about the Gospel of Judas. As it purports to be a secret account of a conversation between Jesus and Judas (but it is written in the third person, indicating it was written by neither), we might pertinently ask who was it that did write it? If indeed it were an historical account, how would the details of this secret conversation be known to anyone but Jesus and Judas, neither of whom could have written the book? This brief account is certainly difficult to regard as a remotely historical work; it is quite evident that it can teach us nothing about the actual betrayal and crucifixion of Christ.
Essentially, Irenaeus rejected the Gospel of Judas for very good reasons: It is a late and unhistorical production of a fringe Gnostic sect which was characterized by some very unbiblical beliefs. We can certainly learn a good deal about the beliefs of some Egyptian Gnostics in the second century AD, but we cannot regard it as a legitimate viewpoint of what was believed about Judas in the churches of Christ in the early Christian period, let alone an account of the truth about Judas Iscariot and his role in the betrayal and crucifixion of the Lord.
Evidently, then, the Gospel of Judas, while being an interesting document which tells us much about the Cainite and other Gnostic sects in Egypt, tells us nothing about the relationship between Christ and Judas and in no way overturns or even threatens what some are pleased to call the "official" or "traditional" viewpoint of the betrayal of Christ as portrayed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Sadly, the desire for an attention-grabbing headline sometimes tends to overshadow the cold, hard facts in matters of religion and history. Such ideas as presented in fantasy (like The Da Vinci Code) encourage people to imagine a secret and concealed truth which was suppressed by the early church. There is much of this sort of thing in the media hype surrounding the publication of the Gospel of Judas. While it may appeal to conspiracy theorists to imagine that the church has suppressed an equally valid alternative history, the fact is that the Gospel of Judas was rejected by the early church because it was just what Irenaeus said it was—an unhistorical, late, and entirely imagined document which was produced by and served the interests of a small and highly unusual heretical sect of the second century AD. In no way should it cause any Christian to reject Biblical truth, because it is evidently inferior in every way to the historical accounts of the canonical gospel accounts.
Gugliotta, G., and A. Cooperman. "Newly Translated Gospel Offers More Positive Portrayal of Judas."
Kasser, R., M. Meyer, and G. Wurst, Eds., with B.D. Ehrman. The Gospel of Judas (to be published).
McKechnie, Paul. The First Christian Centuries.
Puech, H.C., and B. Blatz, in Schneemelcher (see entry below) 1:387.
Schneemelcher, W. Ed. New
Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings. Trans.
R.M. Wilson. (Louisville,KY:JohnKnox
Publications, 1992), 1:386-7.
Wilford, J.N., and L. Goodstein. "'Gospel of Judas' Surfaces after 1,700 Years." The New York Times
(Please note: This is a preliminary article to provide an immediate response to the recent publication and promotion of the Coptic Pseudo-Gospel of Judas. This article will be replaced by a more comprehensive treatment of the topic in a few months when more material is available—GY).
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS
On Paul Harvey’s Friday broadcast, April 7th, came the following news item:
National Geographic has located an ancient manuscript in the Egyptian desert. It’s written on papyrus. It has authenticated itself with carbon dating. It has been translated by Biblical scholars. And unlike the other four gospels, this one indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus’ request—that Judas, hear this carefully, that Judas helped Jesus get rid of His physical flesh and liberate His spiritual self.
This announcement is not nearly so damaging as it sounds—in fact, it is not damaging at all. What makes this “news” item sound even remotely interesting is our modern-day ignorance of church history and writings. Most of us are unaware of how many “gospels” were actually written. There was the Gospel according to Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and others listed below. The Cyclopedia, of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature was first published from 1867-1887. The Gospel of Judas was mentioned by them:
Of the gospels no longer extant, we know little more than that they once existed. We read in Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, Eusebius, and other ecclesiastical writers of the Gospels of Eve or of Perfection, of Barnabas (ancient and modern), of Bartholomew, of Basilides, of Hesychius, of Judas Iscariot, of the Valentinians, of Apollos, of Cerinthus, of the Twelve Apostles, and several others (3:940) (emphasis gws).
Many of these were known but rejected and perhaps lost because they were fabrications—counterfeits considered unworthy of any merit. That someone found a manuscript of a lost, bogus book might be news, but it is not news that the writing existed. Before anyone makes another stupefying find, there are plenty of other works that were written. Philip Schaff, in his monumental work, History of the Christian Church, points out that many apocryphal books of Acts were written, including The Acts of Peter and Paul, The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Thaddeus, The Acts of Barnabas, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Simon and Jude, and several others (1:188).
Many of these apocryphal books were written to establish some heresy that a sect had developed over the years. They all contradict the truth of the 27 books of the New Testament. They were written after the first century, after inspiration had ceased, and were fairly easily identifiable as fraudulent.
The very idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him is farcical. There were several times that they wanted to put Him to death; our Lord did not need any help in raising the ire of the Jews or giving them opportunities. But consider these facts (from real gospel accounts).
1. Jesus said: “The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not born” (Matt. 26:24). How hypocritical would it have been to have asked Judas to do that which he would regret eternally? There is a vast difference between God allowing men to sin and encouraging them to do so.
2. Jesus’ spiritual self did not need to be liberated. He was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14). He was so spiritual that He told Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
3. Judas did not betray Jesus to help Him, but rather for 30 pieces of silver—because he was a covetous man—a thief, who stole from the money box (John 12:4-6).