By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: April 6, 2006
An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.
Skip to next paragraph Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.
The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.
Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.
"The codex has been authenticated as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature," Mr. Garcia said, citing extensive tests of radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and multispectral imaging and studies of the script and linguistic style. The ink, for example, was consistent with ink of that era, and there was no evidence of multiple rewriting.
"This is absolutely typical of ancient Coptic manuscripts," said Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at the University of Munster in Germany. "I am completely convinced."
The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."
The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.
Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.
Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton who specializes in studies of the Gnostics, said in a statement, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was."
The Gospel of Judas is only one of many texts discovered in the last 65 years, including the gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Philip, believed to be written by Gnostics.
The Gnostics' beliefs were often viewed by bishops and early church leaders as unorthodox, and they were frequently denounced as heretics. The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.
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. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator.
Scholars say that they have long been on the lookout for the Gospel of Judas because of a reference to what was probably an early version of it in a text called Against Heresies, written by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, about the year 180.
Irenaeus was a hunter of heretics, and no friend of the Gnostics. He wrote, "They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."
27 comments:
It certainly calls into question the structure of our modern biblical text. What might things look like today had these newly discovered manuscripts been present, and put under the same scrutiny as the current books of the Bible (as it was being formed)?
Interesting that this particular gospel was found in codex form, as the Egyptians have a great manuscript tradition regarding linear scrolls. Although the development of folio-style texts was certainly known by the 4th C., it still raises the question of who and where this text was written. Even more interesting is the fact that this new discovery comes from a region with a rich history of literature (Library at Alexandria) gathered from around the world.
Is Terry Garcia related to Jerry Garcia?
witsie42--
Actually, there need not be much speculation about the formation of the canon, for this writing was known at the time. As the article notes, Irenaeus of Lyons as early as 180 C.E. wrote strongly against the writing. While it may have persisted within marginal communities as a document of authority/teaching, Irenaeus' perspective probably represents the consensus of the majority of the Christian bishops. While many may question the suppression of such documents, it is clear that nearly 200 years after Irenaeus, even if the book of Judas had come up for "review" to be in the canon, it wouldn't have stood a chance. Because of Irenaeus' and other bishop's opposition to it, this particular document did not attain to universal use within the larger Christian church, which acceptance would be one of the major criterion for determining canonicity.
Thank you for the clarification. I was wrong to assume that Irenaeus' reference to the book was based on a loose understanding of it's overall content, rather than first hand experience with the text itself.
I suppose that it is simply the physical resurfacing of the manuscript as an "object" that truly makes this a newsworthy event, as scholars in the past were already familiar with the content.
I suppose that it is simply the physical resurfacing of the manuscript as an "object" that truly makes this a newsworthy event, as scholars in the past were already familiar with the content.
Of any other document, I would say this is true. However, when one enters the realm of biblical scholarship, there are significant forces that will attempt to make stories out of non-entities just for the sake of overturning other scholars with whom they disagree. For example, over the next several weeks we will see a plethora of "Dateline" investigations from the major players (History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, etc). On every one of these, one will be sure to note at least two things:
1. Elaine Pagels will be on every single one. A self-declared expert on Christian "gnosticism," no doubt she is drunk with giddiness about the opportunities this will provide her to display her research. In her conversations, she will wax eloquent about the "oppressive" forces of the early Church which, as she will assert, brutally oppressed what was supposedly a huge and vibrant expression of belief within the early Christian Church.
2. You will have the token evangelical scholar who will be forced/edited to say ridiculous things about the "historicity" of the biblical texts (or might even do it of his free will [yes, it will be a 'he'--a nice juxtaposition between the "intolerant" evangelical and the liberated feminity of Pagels]).
Actually, there's one more:
3. There will be an irrelevant discussion about "what might have been" if the Gospel of Judas had been "up" for canonicity. As I have already pointed out, this discussion is ultimately futile and completely misrepresents the actual history involved.
Thank you - a well explained response to my ignorance. We'll miss you in our Ivory Tower, but you will always have a space reserved.
I appreciate not only your wisdom regarding the theological aspects of this story, but your fine read on the media machine and bias to boot. Good form!
Exist - I'll begin with an 'amen'. These reports really piss me off. They are so ridiculous in their blatant attempt to undermine a history of their own design where such things as the gnostic gospels were suppressed because of their divisive truths and what not. It's such crap. The statement that these discoveries have "shaken up" Biblical scholarship is ignorant (apart from the crowd that you mentioned - history channel, dateline, etc) as the gnostic heresy is as old as portions of the New Testament. It amazes me that we are so quick to buy into the ideas of some contemporary quack who has an obvious agenda and we are so quick to ignore the likes of the church fathers and councils and all of the scholarship done on the canon (yes they did have an agenda, but why do we assume that it was so devious and not God inspired?). This approach - as found in the Duh vinci code - blows my mind and only reveals the strongly held presuppositions that drive these so called scholars in their research. We need to bring back stoning or burning or something, not for those who disagree, but for those who are idiots and intentionally misleading. There, I feel a little better.
I strongly agree with stoning and burning, but also for those who disagree. :-)And perhaps even for those who do agree but are dead weight, i.e., those who are calvinists. If they complain, just invoke Calvin himself. He was pretty good at burnings...
Vicar--Thank you for your kind comments and your salient additions to the discussion.
As with Deviant, I am all for burnings and stonings as well. If I was ever in a position of real religious power, the very first thing I would do is burn Calvin in effigy and rehabilitate Pelagius just to throw some salt in for good measure.
Why not rehabilitate Calvin as well and make him pelagius' love slave for more of an effect?
Oh yes, I need to add another prediction to your list-
4. Dominic Crossan will look as sexy as ever.
The National Geographic one just finished. Crossan wasn't there, but Marvin Meyer was. They also had Bart Ehrman, a William Klassen, Craig Evans...and yes, Elaine Pagels. I'll give a brief summary by running through your three things then saying a bit after.
1. Practically spot-on. She spoke facts and lies, but hardly any truths; I got the impression that her facts were generally said in a way to mean something that they couldn't.
2. Practically nothing was said on the historicity of the Biblical texts, actually...nor was there a conservative or Evangelical scholar, unless Evans is one. (However, they did have Robert Schuller look like a fool towards the end.) The little I remember them saying about historicity was said by Evans. He said that he doesn't think Judas is historically valuable. However, Pagels effectively disagreed with him, but didn't really give a good reason why. (She said something about comparing Judas' dating with the NT Gospels'.)
3. Close. They said a bit about the canon, implying that the reason for rejecting Judas and "over 30 other gospels" was because they didn't 'resonate' with the Christian community. At one point, they made it sound like Irenaeus favoured those particular four gospels because there were four corners of the earth, four points of the compass etc (rather than him wanting four in total for that reason). To be fair, Pagels said that it was probably a mixture of popularity among Christians and other factors. But none of them mentioned Apostolic tradition or anything like that.
So yes, it was long. Two hours. However, the first hour or so was devoted to talking about the process of procuring it, putting it together and guaranteeing its authenticity. Yes, they needed to talk about those things, but I got the sense that they spent too much time and effort on it. The last the next 40 - 50 mins (felt more like 25 - 40) were spent talking about its actual content. They read parts of it, had people act out stuff and so forth. That was the best part methinks.
Then they ended with a bit about its implications, whether its accurate, valuable and so forth. That was 5 - 10 mins. (That's where they brought in Schuller to look stupid.)
One final note: they actually admitted and spent some time on the fact that it was written by Gnostics. Yes, when they first said it they tried to make it sound that they had as much say as the orthodox church on what is right, and that they were as Christian as the orthodox. However, I don't think they coherently presented that image throughout the feature.
And it's been ages since I've seen you, man. But maybe it's my fault -- I haven't been at cf much lately. I only found this when I was looking for a Sola Scriptura topic on GT, saw that you were the last post on a topic clicked on it and then....
~Perceivence
Perceivance! Long time no see! Thanks for the synopsis. Maybe I will "Netflix" this one...
Why don't we begin the stonings with Deviant? I'll cast the first.
sweet...i've always wanted to be a martyr!
Has anybody here read an Elaine Pagels book? I tried, I really did. I got through about 4 chapters, and then i just couldn't take it anymore. The book I read by her on Gnosticism or was kind of lame...she was arbitrarily dating Nag Hammadi texts. And interpreting everything through 20th century feminism. And not even subtly at that. It was great. And by great I mean lame. Again.
Deviant--
I actually read, and finished, "Beyond Belief" by Pagels. It was everything of which you complain, and more.
You guys all seem to be pretty confident about your ideas of this newly-located book, and the construction of the bible in general. In reality, no one really knows anything regarding these subjects. How can you prove which texts are divinely inspired, and which are not? How can you know the social/political/religious filters through which these early councils operated? Blah blah blah blah, I'm smart, and I know everything. Show me how!
Champ--
Thus far, I don't think the issue has been that of inspiration, per se. Rather, the discussion centers around the status of the Gospel of Judas during the salient years of canon formation. As has already been noted, the stance of the majority of Christendom in relationship to the multifarious gnostic texts in existence was firmly in place by the time of the final codification of the canon. Therefore, although many may wish to bicker about whether or not the Gospel of Judas should have been considered, the only important historical reality is that there is no way that it would have been.
I don't think anyone here would say that anybody can prove if anything is divinely inspired, since such a thing can't be determined scientifically. That is issue is a matter of faith.
Regarding the Gospel of Judas, the issue it supposedly concerns is that of Christian origins and movements, and whether there were significant tangents within the Christian movement in its intital stages. Persons such as Pagels have a consistent track record of dating newly discovered texts as early as possible to recreate Christian history into a multi-faceted movement that had no core beliefs, traditions, etc. Pagels herself has been taken to task by even secular scholars for this practice.
Regarding why the Gospel of Judas doesn't give much insight into Christian origins- it's really not old enough. The fragment we have comes from the 3rd century, and its earliest mention comes from 180 AD, which is over 100 years removed from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Conversely, The Muratorian Canon, which dates between 180-200 AD, gives a listing of books recognized universally by the church of the time, as well as listing important heretical works that should be rejected. If the Gospel of Judas was such an important book, one would think it would probably be mentioned.
Also, the fact the Ireneaus is the only one (that I know of) to really mention it, and that in passing, indicates that it didn't have much of an impact on its world.
Although in our arrogance we in the modern world think we are the ones who invented textual criticism, it was alive and well during the formation of the canon. An example that comes to mind is a letter from Julius Africanus to Origen, in which they debate the canonicity of The Book of Enoch. In the letters they discuss authorship, writing styles, etc. So the canon wasn't just formed by arbitrarily accepting books- it went through a very rigorous process.
Lastly, that the books of the canon we have now were the main formational materials for Christianity is attested to by the church fathers, such as Ireneaus. In their works they not only cite books within the canon, but quote them in a way that assumes the reader is familar with and accepting of the texts. I'm not saying there is perfect agreement, but substantial agreement nevertheless, especially as it regards the Gospels, Acts and letters of Paul, which give us the most substantial information about early Christianity. It should also be noted that many of the church fathers did not even have significant hierarchical positions within the church- Tertullian, who gives us the first systematic outline of Trinitarian theology, was never a bishop, and was even distanced from the church in his later life.
Anyway, that's all i have.
"As has already been noted, the stance of the majority of Christendom in relationship to the multifarious gnostic texts in existence was firmly in place by the time of the final codification of the canon."
So, the status quo is sufficient for you? You know, Exist, there was a time when the majority of the Western world believed that the earth was flat ...
Well stated, Deviant. However, this doesn't mean that I like you.
??? I am not saying that this stance towards these books was "right" or "wrong." All I am saying is that the Church's historic opposition to these texts is indisputable.
"I am not saying that this stance towards these books was "right" or "wrong."
Ohhhh. So now you're gonna throw all of that post-modern crap at me? Right can be left, and everything is relative. God forbid we take a stand for anything and voice a definitive belief or idea. You seem to be a man of great wisdom and education. Surely you can give us more than a flimsy non-committal regarding this topic.
Kudos on the new design. It looks great!
the new design is as a sooting salve to my eyes...unless I'm viewing it in IE...no, j/k, it's just that some of the text in places bleeds off the edge. I'm not a firefox whore yet.
YEs, the new design is definitely "Best Viewed in Firefox." IE just can't handle transparency, rounded box edges, or proper alignment of ANYTHING.
Hopefully it will die soon.
Georg--
I am not sure of the relationship of the Gospel of Judas to transubstantiation.
Post a Comment