I saw a replay of the National Geographic special of the Gospel of Judas on Holy Thursday between 2AM and 4AM (GMT +8). The account of the authentication of the papyrus presented no problem to me since whether the document is a "Gospel of Judas" does not depend on antiquity. We know that even the canonical gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not come to us with the title "Gospel According to x". The way NG presented the contents of the Gospel of Judas, however, is a different matter.
Whoever prepared the text of the documentary made it sound as if the canonical gospels made Judas into an excuse for anti-Semitism. There is an allegation that while Mark, the earliest gospel, does not name the betrayer of Jesus, the later gospels lay it on Judas. The fourth gospel especially while naming the "Jews" as wishing to kill Jesus makes the betrayer's name, Judas, sound like "Jew."
What is being insinuated here? That the fourth gospel bears the seeds of anti-semitism, if it is not anti-semitic itself?
In the first place, the allegation that the earliest gospel does not name Judas as the betrayer of Jesus is utterly mistaken. Mark does not name Judas in the Last Supper account because he already attached the phrase "who betrayed" to Judas' name in the manner of a label during the account of the choosing of the Twelve (Mark 3:19). Furthermore, just before the Last Supper, Mark recounts how Judas approached the chief priests to betray Jesus to them (Mark 14:10-11).
Secondly, Gregory Baum has written a book examining whether the gospels are anti-semitic ("Are The Gospels Anti-Semitic"). The conclusions he reaches at the end of the detailed study should show that the gospels cannot be by intent anti-semitic because their central character, Jesus of Nazareth, is presented as a Jew. The fourth gospel with its polarizations -- light and darkness, Jews and Jesus, etc. -- makes the "Jews" a theological reality, not ethnic, since the followers of Jesus and those sympathetic to him (beginning from John the Baptist and his followers to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, a Pharisee), were Jews.
The scientist/scholars cited in the documentary had their comments edited so as to make it sound as if the "official Christianity" debased the figure of Judas which in the "Gospel of Judas" is presented as the only one who knew Jesus and with whom Jesus confided his secrets. It is not mentioned that in Gnosticism, "secret knowledge" is the main thing. Secondly, the contents of the Gospel of Judas is not compared with other gnostic writings.
In other apocryphal gospels, some apostle other than Peter ("The Rock" in Matthew 16) is presented as having a special connection with Jesus. In the Gospel of Thomas, for example, one finds this interesting passage:
Jesus said to his disciples, "Give me a similitude. Tell me, what am I like?"
Simon Peter replied, "You are like an angel of justice."
Matthew replied, "Master, you are like a philosopher."
Thomas replied, "Master, my lips are totally incapable of saying what you are like."
And Jesus said to them: "I am your Master to the extent that you have drunk and have been inebriated by the gurgling font which I have measured out to you."
And he took him (Thomas) aside and said something to him.
When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus tell you?"
And Thomas said in reply, "If I told you just one word of what he told me, you'd pick up rocks to stone me and from those rocks fire shall come out and burn you."
The Gospel of Thomas, like the Gospel of Judas, came from a community of faith that differentiates itself from the one where Peter is recognized as authoritative. The passage above is similar to the Confession of Peter in the synoptic gospels. The gnostic characteristic is found in that part where Jesus takes Thomas apart from the group and tells him things the others can't hear. The same thing occurs in the Gospel of Judas. After Judas humbly excuses himself for not being able to express who Jesus really is, Jesus whispers something to him that is inaudible to the others. Both of these are in stark contrast to the public announcement of Jesus with regard to Peter after this confesses that he is the Messiah.
Finally, the NG documentary draws from this one 2nd century artifact a generalization about the pluriformity of Christianity in its early years. It only documents the opinions of scholars who are enthusiastic about the find. The documentary fails to include what scholars say about Gnosticism in general and why this way of thinking was rejected early in the history of the Church. The one who prepared the text of the documentary had the chance to do this when he pointed out that in the Gospel of Judas, the account of the crucifixion is suppressed. He was correct in stating that in the Gnostic mind-set the crucifixion is unnecessary, but fails to explain it clearly. The reason is simple: for the Gnostics, Jesus was not human, but the divine clothed in human form. His death was just an appearance and it had no meaning for the salvation of humanity. The Gnostic "faith" is about doctrine, and a secret one; it is not about God uniting himself with humanity and giving His life for him. It is knowledge that is for an elect few, a secret key that would unlock to them eternal life. This is not the Christian faith, which is above all, centered on the love which God reveals to mankind; the love which in the first letter of John is identified as God Himself. "God so loved the world that He gave us His only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him may have eternal life." (Jn. 3:16). It is for this reason too that Paul warns Timothy about a novelty called "gnosis"
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of the so-called "gnosis". (1 Tim. 6:20)
The Gospel of Judas is a valuable artifact from the 2nd century. I share with the scholars the conviction that it would be valuable -- as a historic document -- to show us what certain groups of men and women believed about Christ. With Elaine Pagels, I say that the Gospel of Judas does not come to us as an alternative to the canonical Gospels. It is a historic document, like all the other apocryphal gospels, interesting to a certain extent, but not sufficient to change by its expressed faith, the faith that the apostles proclaimed.
See: English Translation of the Gospel of Judas in PDF (@copy; National Geographic)
[series-info:left]
