The Judas You Never Knew

This is Part 2 of comments on Bart Ehrman's new book, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (OUP, 2006). [See Part 1] It's worth reflecting on just why a book about a gnostic manuscript full of speculative musings about Judas and Jesus which almost certainly have no historical basis can be successfully marketed to a general audience. Answer: The Da Vinci Code ("DVC"). The wildly successful novel has created not just one but two new genres: the religious thriller genre and the non-canonical Christian writings genre. There were books in the second genre before DVC (such as Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels) but it has exploded since, with half of them being expressly designed as refutations of DVC itself. Just imagine what Dan Brown's next book will do for the Mormon Studies market!

Christian Gnosticism
Lest anyone get worried that this new Judas manuscript is going to upset the Christian applecart, have no fear. Gospel of Judas is just another gnostic gospel. The fascination of modern scholars with the newer gnostic documents often overshadows the fact that the best attested and most historically reliable texts that we have in the "gospel" genre are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which date to the latter third of the first century AD. The gnostic gospels date to, at the earliest, the second century and invariably play off the canonical gospels, claiming to give one or another version of secret teachings that Jesus supposedly delivered to this or that disciple when no one else was around. They tend to be long dialogue pieces rather than narrative treatments like the four canonical gospels.

In Chapter 7, "The Gospel of Judas and Early Christian Gnosticism," Ehrman uses the new Judas text to talk about Christian Gnosticism. There is much dispute about the general topic, but Ehrman endorses the view that Gnosticism springs from failed Jewish Apocalypticism (of which the Book of Daniel is the best example, with echoes in Matthew 24 and in the Book of Revelation):

Jewish apocalypticism itself came from failed prophecy. The prophets had said that suffering came as a punishment for sin; they urged the people of Israel to return to God's ways so that their suffering would end. But the suffering didn't end, even when the people of God repented. This led to a radical shift in thinking: maybe God wasn't really in control. ... In this view, God didn't cause suffering; the Devil and his forces did. But God would soon intervene, overthrow these forces of evil, and bring in a good Kingdom on earth (p. 119).

Then, in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD (and again around 135 AD), the apocalyptic paradigm itself became problematic, leading to "a radical rethinking of apocalytpic theology." In the resulting Gnostic formulation, God is even more removed from the world we live in. The world itself, the created material world we live in and suffer through, is seen as "a cosmic disaster," created by an errant demiurge rather than God Almighty. In this Gnostic cosmology, salvation is getting the divine, spiritual spark — the real you — out of this evil, material body and back to God's somewhat remote spiritual kingdom or fulness.

This is an interesting analysis of Gnosticism, although it doesn't account for non-Christian or Sethian Gnosticism very well.

What Judas Did
With that background, it is easy to see how a Gnostic might recast the story of Judas. He wasn't a betrayer, he instead helped Jesus (or the divine spirit within Jesus) escape his body by turning him over to the Jewish leaders and the Romans. That's essentially the theme of the Gospel of Judas, as summarized by Ehrman in Chapter 4. The other members of the Twelve never understood the real meaning of Jesus' teachings, only Judas did. When Judas demonstrates his superior understanding, Jesus singles Judas out for advanced instruction — private, of course. There are several visions recounted in the text, as well as a long Gnostic creation account. The narrative ends at the betrayal of Jesus: in the Gnostic view, the Crucifixion is a minor event and the Resurrection is simply wrongheaded.

In Chapter 10, Ehrman gets down to brass tacks: What exactly did Judas convey that betrayed Jesus? Relying here on the four canonical gospels and on the best scholarship we have, Ehrman lays out the scenario that Jesus taught his disciples privately, late in his ministry, that he was to be king in the future Kingdom of God to be ushered in by apocalyptic events (i.e., that he was the Messiah as understood by many Jews at the time). But as that was not taught publicly, Jewish leaders could not use that teaching as a basis for arresting him. Judas, by communicating to Jewish leaders the substance of that private teaching, gave them what they needed to arrest Jesus and, later, to accuse him before the Romans.

If it doesn't sound like Gospel of Judas is for you, there's always Ehrman's own Da Vinci rebuttal: Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdelene, and Constantine. Quite a title. I'll have to read the The Da Vinci Code first, I suppose. I know there's a copy floating around the house somewhere ...

Comments

[Clark Goble]

Gnosticism is weird as there are so many different theories about it - especially in a Jewish context. For instance there's still a debate raging over whether gnosticism influenced Jewish mysticism or vice versa.

[gwa3]

"This is an interesting analysis of Gnosticism, although it doesn't account for non-Christian or Sethian Gnosticism very well."

a great point since gospel of judas is generally seen as a sethian text. of course ehrman is no scholar of gnosticism (in the strict sense) like pagels or layton, he's just capitalizing on market trends.

"...that he was to be king..."

interesting. like joseph smith?

[J. Stapley]

gwa3, yeah, secret teaching of political kingship, betrayal be an insider...sounds familiar.

[Dave]

Ehrman ties his account of the content of what Judas betrayed to the Jewish leaders to the "King of the Jews" sign posted on the cross at the Crucifixion. If the claim was the substance of the betrayal, it renders somewhat more comprehensible the sign on the cross.

Interestingly, Ehrman distinguishes between the Son of Man (a title he felt was being used to refer to an apocalyptic figure who would return to overthrow the political powers opposing the rule of the righteous) and the kingly Messiah, who would assume direction over the ensuing righteous kingdom (the role Ehrman saw Jesus as making a private claim to).

[TrailerTrash]

"Gospel of Judas is just another gnostic gospel."

AAACK! This makes me so crazy and this is why Erhman should be completely ignored! On March 6, 2007 Elaine Pagels and Karen King will produce an actual commentary on GJudas that doesn't just download what we think we already know about "Gnosticism" onto Judas. Ehrman basically just imports every stereotype about gnosticism onto the text seemingly unaware that these stereotypes have been completely disproven and that Judas doesn't exhibit most of them.

[Dave]

TT, in fairness to Ehrman, the quote is mine, not his. But while he uses the Gospel of Judas creatively and instructively, I don't see anything about the description and summary of it provided by Ehrman that suggests it is anything other than more gnostic ruminations. I'll wait and see what Pagels has to offer in her upcoming book.

I'm much more inclinded to take the Gospel of Thomas seriously as a text with some historical connection to 1st-century Christian communities (Crossan grants it "independent source" status). I also did a post on Pagels' book on the Gospel of Thomas. And another post on the Gospel of Thomas itself.

[TrailerTrash]

Dave,
When I get around to it after the next few weeks, I will post on GJudas, Gnosticism, and maybe even GTh. Thanks for raising these issues!

[David J]

TrailerTrash, indeed, the NT scholars I ran with in grad school all had Ehrman labeled as a quack (akin to Margaret Barker for the OT crowd). I'm not sure what did it for him (his appeal to the quasi-popular audience? his pseudo-scholarship writing style?), but my suspicion is it was one of his earlier works, possibly The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which is quite conjectural and unreliable (as tempting as the title sounds, especially for Mormons). I actually read that book cover to cover and found it amusing, but not too convincing. I also read some of his other smaller works. Although Dave's summary of Ehrman (#4 above) is spot-on for the "son of man" title (coming from Daniel, most likely) -- very apocalyptic.

Now Pagels is pretty good with this stuff, although I have yet to finish one of her books, as I mostly just used bits and pieces of her stuff for papers.

[Ben]

But David J., aren't you at a conservative seminary? That might explain their reaction to Ehrman's attack on the reliability of biblical scribes and text.

SBL in San Antonio, several years ago, had Ehrman giving a presentation (perhaps not at a regular session), that was standing-room-only, in an extra large area. Probably 350+ people in there. For being a quack, the professionals sure seemed to at least want to know what he was saying.

[gwa3]

i'm curious to know whether anyone besides sola scriptura types really compares ehrman and barker, and if so how? the only connection i see is their willingness to question tradition. beyond that, they're quite different: she's very open to the supernatural (to a fault, some would say), while he's completely skeptical. although i stand by my comment that ehrman is no scholar of gnostcism, he is highly respected in his field: nt (textual criticism). and even in his more popular publications (i.e. lost christianities), he is far from a quack nor does his writting ever approach the pseudo-scholarly in my opinion (rhetorically heavy-handed yes). i think that's just a knee-jerk reaction among religious conservatives who feel threatened by him. as far as orthodox corruption of scripture, from the reviews i've read and the fact that oup keeps publishing his regurgitations of it, i don't think most nt textual critics would label it "quite conjectural and unreliable." quite the opposite. it seems to be considered a groundbreaking study in its placement of nt textual criticism in early christian history rather than a vaccum. although i think he often overtates his his case, often he has very solid evidence (e.g. when he can cite a corruption in ireneaus' polemic against this or that christological heresy).

[Kim Siever]

"I'll have to read the The Da Vinci Code first"

Or you can watch the movie. ;)