XXIV: Reflections on the "Gospel of Judas"

11 April 2006 Common Era

While The da Vinci Code mania continues to develop and grow throughout the world and while "other gospels" and "alternative Christianities" have become popular, we now see revealed to us yet another "lost gospel," the Gospel of Judas. The National Geographic Society has done a good job of marketing this discovery and are profiting heavily from it; the media splash guarantees that it will be the topic at many a water cooler in offices throughout America. Since there is such a great commotion regarding this discovery, it is good to spend some time examining this Gospel of Judas.

Origins and Discovery

The Gospel of Judas that has been found is part of a codex, a term used to describe ancient "books" of folded paper, a codex entitled Codex Tchacos after the father of the antiquities dealer who transferred the document to scholars for preservation and safekeeping. The Gospel of Judas is not the only text on this codex: it also contains what is being called the Apocalypse of James, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the fragments of the Book of Allogenes. So far the Gospel of Judas has been the most popularized; we may learn more of the other documents at a later time.

The codex was discovered near El Minya, Egypt in the 70s, and eventually wound up in the United States where it remained until purchased by the previously mentioned antiquities dealer in 2000. The manuscript will eventually be delivered back to Egypt and placed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

The codex itself dates to around the late third century or early fourth century CE. While we can have no firm dates as to precisely when the Gospel of Judas was written, we do know that it must have originated before 180, for Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies writes regarding the book the following:

[some] declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves…They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictional history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas, (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I. 31. 1).

While it is possible that there was another work styled the Gospel of Judas, most believe that the manuscript found concords to the work concerning which Irenaeus spoke. It should also be noted, therefore, that although we did not actually possess any copies of the Gospel of Judas previously, people knew about it through Irenaeus' citation above.

The Authorship and Provenance of the Gospel of Judas

No one really doubts the group of people who are responsible for the creation and promulgation of the Gospel of Judas: it comes from a group of Gnostics. Judas Iscariot was by no means its author, nor could he ever have been the author-- the text comes far later than his demise.

In 1945, a similar find was made near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, where some Bedouin came across many codices of mostly Gnostic texts also written in Coptic and dating from the same general timeframe as the Gospel of Judas (it should be noted that Egypt was not the only place where Gnostics flourished; the discoveries of texts there are on account of the happy circumstance of Egypt's dryness, which tends to preserve ancient documents better than in other, wetter places). Many different types of Gnostic texts, along with some parts of Plato's Republic, were discovered in this find, including many gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, and so on and so forth.

All of these texts help us better understand the nature of the beliefs of the Gnostics. In many ways, it is as difficult to generalize about Gnostic beliefs as it is to generalize about Christian beliefs, since they disagreed amongst themselves in many ways. They never called themselves "Gnostics" proper; such was a nineteenth century term to describe the variant belief systems that emphasized secret knowledge (Greek gnosis) and the idea that by knowing these secret things will lead to salvation. Gnosticism overall represents an attempt to assimilate Christian ideas into Hellenistic philosophies. The Gnostics tended to envision a spiritual world with many gods on different levels, and a "Demiurge", or creator god, at the bottom, foolishly believing that he is the only god. The Logos, a "higher god", so to speak, comes to earth to help give those humans who can understand the special knowledge so as to get around this creator god and be saved. To this end, most Gnostics considered all physical things to be evil and were generally known for their ascetic practices. Gnosticism flourished from the second through fourth centuries, and despite its decline had a significant impact on various sectarian groups deep into the medieval era. Many ancient authors-- Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others-- wrote extensive tractates condemning the doctrines of the Gnostics, and until recently represented the only knowledge we had regarding such groups.

The Gnostics that seem to be behind the Gospel of Judas, at least according to Irenaeus, would perhaps be called "Cainites," since they believed that they had some association with Cain and other such persons. The Gnostics behind the Nag Hammadi documents tended to be of the Sethian version, believing and speaking regarding the "great Seth"; other groups included the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, the Encratites, the Marcionites, and others. Despite the differences in these groups, we can see many common Gnostic themes permeating this Gospel of Judas, as can be noted below:

1. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus mocks the disciples for offering thanks for their bread to their god, acting as if he is not his son (Gospel of Judas 34); this corresponds to the general Gnostic attitude that put Jesus at odds with the God of the Old Testament.

2. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus mentions a figure named Barbelo (35), who is present in the Apocryphon of John and other texts discovered at Nag Hammadi.

3. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus mentions the "corruptible Sophia" (44), who is also mentioned in many of the Gnostic versions of creation.

4. In the Gospel of Judas, Judas sees a vision and Jesus confirms for him that only he could see it and understand it (44-46), correlating well to the general Gnostic idea of secret spiritual knowledge.

5. The Gospel of Judas has Jesus present a discussion of the creation, and in said discussion speaks of the creation of Yaldabaoth, or Nebro ("the rebel"), who was to rule over the "chaos and the underworld" (50-51); this is also consistent with the Gnostic versions of creation, perverting the Hebrew Yahweh into "Yaldabaoth".

These are only some of the numerous parallels that exist between the Gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic literature that we have discovered and also that is chronicled in patristic literature. It is most certainly Gnostic in every way.

The Gospel of Judas and the New Testament

Having examined the text we can now focus on the question that everyone will be asking: how does the Gospel of Judas relate to the New Testament? Was it "removed" from the New Testament? Is there some truth in it that is trying to be hidden by Christians?

These same questions have been asked regarding the Gnostic documents found at Nag Hammadi and even more so since the popularity of The da Vinci Code, and the answers remain the same.

Christians of the second through fourth centuries, when determining for themselves what works were inspired and thus canonical and what were not, used very straightforward guidelines, and most "orthodox" Christians came to similar conclusions. To be inspired, and thus profitable for understanding per 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a book had to have apostolic certification by being written by an apostle or the direct associate of an apostle. With the exception of a few radical scholars in regards to the Gospel of Thomas, there is unanimity that all the Gnostic works were written after the demise of the Apostles and their associates; they have no claim to inspired authenticity. The Gospel of Judas falls into this category: no one believes that it was written by Judas Iscariot or any other apostle.

We can see, therefore, that the Gospel of Judas was never considered a part of the New Testament, and if even ever considered, would have been rejected on the basis of not bearing the imprint of inspiration alone.

Many, however, desire to believe that Gnosticism has some truth in it and that Gnosticism should be considered an "alternative Christianity," one that could have the same claim to truth as the New Testament. While people can certainly believe that Gnosticism is correct if they so desire, such does not mean that Gnosticism is really a form of Christianity and certainly does not mean that its claims of truth would stand scrutiny. While many postmodern scholars would like to take a bit from the Gospels in the New Testament and a bit from the Gnostic works and try to paint a portrait of the "historical Jesus," the result is terribly unsatisfying: both groups did not accept one another. Both groups thought the other was wrong. The modern attempt to create some form of harmonization between Christianity and Gnosticism is misguided: the result is a belief system to which no one in the ancient world adhered.

In the end, one must either believe in the Gnostic gospels or the Bible; one cannot have both. The two are diametrically opposed. While the Gospel of Judas would claim that the god who created the world is a lower god and not really connected to Jesus, the Bible portrays God as a benevolent Creator, and Jesus as His Son, working with the Father in the creation, one with the Father, sent to do His will (Genesis 1, John 1:1-3, John 4:34, John 10:30). While the Gospel of Judas would posit the existence of many gods, the Bible speaks only of one (Deuteronomy 6:4, James 2:19). While the Gospel of Judas would proclaim Judas to be the only real disciple of God, reminiscent in many ways of the movie The Last Temptation of the Christ, the New Testament reveals Judas to be the thieving, traitorous betrayer who killed himself on account of his deeds (John 12:4, 13:2; Matthew 27:3-5). While the Gospel of Judas would revel in secret knowledge, Paul warns Timothy to not be seduced by the knowledge (gnosis) falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20). It is manifest, then, that one either believes in the God of the Bible or the gods of the Gnostics; the two do not meet.

Conclusion

It is my hope that this material has helped you gain a better understanding of the Gospel of Judas and will help you be able to defend the hope that is in you in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 3:15). If you would like more information, the best place is to visit the National Geographic website and look at their material:

FAQ on the Gospel of Judas
Download a PDF of the text of the Gospel of Judas in English

For more information on Gnosticism and the New Testament, please visit A Study of Denominations: Appendix J: Gnosticism.

Let us not be disturbed in faith by the discovery of more Gnostic documents that are sensationalized in the media, yet let us take the opportunities given to us to allow the truth of the Gospel to shine in the midst of such darkness.

For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward, (2 John 1:7-8).

ELDV

XXIII: Struggling to Disbelieve

05 April 2006 Common Era

Let us explore a topic off of the news wires recently.

On April 5, Reuters ran an article entitled "Jesus may have walked on ice?". The article details the new theory of one Professor Doron Nof. He alleges that it is "possible" that Jesus walked on ice, and not water, as the Bible would say.

As the article explains:

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice thick enough to support a human to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

Nof said he offered his study -- published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology -- as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water, ("Jesus may have walked on ice?", Reuters, 04/05/2006).

Science has many times tried to explain, either to affirm or to deny, many of the stories of the Bible, yet this one takes the cake for incredulity.

Let us consider the Biblical narrative of the event in Matthew 14:22-33:

And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side, till he should send the multitudes away. And after he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when even was come, he was there alone. But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea.
And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost"; and they cried out for fear.
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying "Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid."
And Peter answered him and said, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters."
And he said, "Come."
And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me."
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased.
And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

The divergence between this narrative and the new theory ought to be rather telling. Let us consider some of them.

1. Notice how the article constantly uses conditionals: "could have been," "perhaps," etc.
2. For the article to have any claim to seriousness, the timeframe of this event would have to be during cold temperatures. If it were during the late spring through early fall, it has no merit whatsoever.
3. The disciples got into the boat earlier that night-- where was the ice then?
4. The boat is not really near the shore-- it was many stadia away. The boat would have been no closer than a quarter of a mile. How far could that ice extend?
5. If Jesus were on a piece of ice, how would He maneuver said ice so as to appear to the disciples to walk on the water?
6. Furthermore, the wind was strong and the sea choppy-- how would Jesus have remained on the ice without tipping over at some point(s), let alone maneuver the ice piece to the ship?
7. If the disciples could not see the ice Jesus was on, what of Peter and him getting out of the boat? If there were ice, the disciples would have seen it.
8. If Peter were to get out onto load-bearing ice, why would his loss of faith lead him to sink?

These are just some of the many difficulties that the theory presented simply cannot withstand. In the end, it takes far more faith to believe the article and the idea that Jesus was on ice than it takes to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and can walk on water and facilitate others in walking on water. Yet you can be sure that there will either be a special on this theory or this theory will be highlighted on some special on television, and all kinds of people will think it "possible".

In the end, however, the article has one very telling line, one that really explains the entire situation.

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it," (ibid. cit. above).

It should be clear now why someone would go to such lengths to come up with such a fantastically improbable story. He does not believe in Jesus walking on water and has no desire to believe that Jesus walked on water. Therefore he will come up with whatever he can to try to explain away a manifestly supernatural event.

This is really nothing new. After all, science has continually advocated for the theory of macroevolution, an unprovable theory that requires far more faith than the concept of God creating all things. The impulse to try to explain God out of everything is rather prevalent in our society.

Jesus considers the matter aptly in Matthew 9:12:

But when he heard it, he said, "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick."

In the end, Jesus can do nothing for those who think that they are healthy-- those who think that they have the answers, those who think that they are not sinners, those who think that there is no reason to believe.

Consider the example of a person who denies that they are physically ill. If a person denies that they have a problem with alcohol, what will happen? Somehow or another, that illness will still lead to their destruction. What if a person simply denies that they have cancer? Will that stop the cancer-- or will that lead to a faster death? Those who profess to be whole yet are not will always have a reality check in store.

Yet how many people are spiritually sick yet believe that they are healthy? There are many, of course, who believe that they are right with God yet are not known to Him (Matthew 7:21-23). There are many more who see no need for God-- they are perfectly fine in their lives, they have a nice middle or upper class life that they have made for themselves, and they are in need of nothing. Many of these types are the very ones who, in their arrogance, deny that there is a God and do all they can to justify their disbelief. They are all spiritually sick, and we all lament the reality check that would be in store for them without repentance. Yet if they cannot realize their illness, how can there be any expectation of relief?

This article should not be considered an attack on the faith as much as the desperate attempt of a spiritually sick man to make it seem as if he is whole. Let us not fall into that trap; let us recognize that we are sinners, that we are in need of redemption, and that we look to the Physician of our souls for strength. Let us not be self-deceived "whole" people; let us recognize that we are recovering sinners, and strive to help others see their illness and the cure.

ELDV

XXII: The Tragedy of Divisive Attitudes

01 April 2006 Common Era

It is often said that you only know you stand for something when you make enemies. I suppose I can relate to that today.

It was the unfortunate occurrence that a certain "brother" who will remain nameless decided to run my name through the mud on an e-mail list that received my report.

This individual and I had many disagreements on Mars-List over two years ago, and he felt that my beliefs regarding the head covering of 1 Corinthians 11 were aberrant. I felt his ideas on both 1 Corinthians 11 and Romans 14 were aberrant; he desired to render them irrelevant to the Christian today, and I feel that there is no evidence for such and plenty of evidence against such positions.

Regardless, he e-mailed everyone on this list that had received my report and claimed that I believed in the head covering, that I made it a "test of fellowship" and that I made it a "matter of salvation".

While I do believe in the head covering, I have never made it a "test of fellowship" nor a "matter of salvation".

I immediately responded to everyone who had received it, apologized for them having to hear about these matters, and said as much regarding my position on the covering.

This individual responds and basically admits the truth of the matter, although not explicitly: see, according to the way he would interpret 1 Corinthians 11, if he were me and believed it to be necessary, he would have to make it a "test of fellowship" and a "matter of salvation". Apparently, since this is how he would view the passage, it's okay to ascribe that view to me even though I have never taught it or believed it.

He then went on to basically attempt to foster division: since, in his belief system, he would not be able to have association with brethren who believe in the head covering, neither should anyone else. After all, for some women to be covered and others not would be "unity-in-diversity" and on the path to Hell, apparently.

I would like to let everyone know exactly where I stand on this matter.

Yes, I believe that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 requires a woman to have long hair and an artificial covering. Nevertheless, I recognize that the passage is not the clearest, and I recognize that there are many objections that have some merit to that position. I believe, however, that the other positions advocated in an attempt to understand the passage have objections with far more merit, and such is why I believe as I do. Since my belief is based partly on what the text indicates and partly because it is the least bothersome position, I feel as if I have no authority to judge how others view it. I will of course discuss the matter with others, and make a defense for my view, but I would certainly never write up anyone in any forum because they disagreed with me on this issue.

While what has occurred is tragic, it's not the really sad part. The sad part is that when I brought up the principle-- not the command, mind you, but the principle-- of Matthew 18:15-17, all this person could say is that I was "scolding him through misusing [this passage]." While I have asked this individual for a defense of his actions, and I am sure that whatever Scriptures he will use he will likewise be removing from the context and "misusing" according to his own standard, that is not the point. This individual could have approached me privately at any time in the past year and a half or however long it has been to speak with me about the matter. He did not. He could have even used this opportunity to speak with me privately. He did not. Instead, he deliberately involved over 30 brethren and in effect made a call to divide from those heretical head covering people.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them, (Romans 16:17).

Sadly, even though this person may be "conservative", he is being divisive. He is taking his own beef and his own issue and his own viewpoint and slamming it down everyone else's throat in a crusade against myself and my teaching. He could have handled it as he would a brother, but he has instead handled it as with an opponent, or worse, as an enemy.

I have not publically responded to him since his most recent public post; I have responded privately, and his response or lack thereof shall be rather telling. If he is sincerely desiring to correct a brother whom he feels is in error, he will surely speak with me privately and try to do so. If he's out to call the next crusade, he will be silent or try to keep this discussion public.

I never desire to mark anyone as divisive, let alone one who is generally of a conservative stripe and with whom I agree on many issues. Unfortunately, attitudes and actions have spoken very loudly. I have had to tell this person that until he repents of his divisiveness, I cannot have anything to do with him.

I would ask you to please pray for me and for this individual; don't worry, he is known to God. I pray for him also, particularly that he may learn the love of the brethren that ought to be manifest especially in matters of correction.

ELDV