“The Gospel of Judas”

These are the notes that go along with my 45 minute lecture on “The Gospel of Judas” which I gave at the “Christianity on Trial Conference” in Regina, 2008. You’ll notice that I lifted them from my online book, “Solid Ground: 100 Reasons to Trust New Testament History”

 The “Gospel” of Judas

The Coptic papyrus was found as part of a codex in a cave near El   Minya, Egypt in 1978. Papyrologists dated the codex to the third or fourth centuries AD, which was later supported by a radiocarbon date of AD 280 (+/-50 years). The codex also contained a letter of Peter to Philip, an epistle of James (which matches the Gnostic Nag Hammadi text), and the Book of Allogenes. All agree that the Judas gospel is really a translation of an earlier Greek version. This belief is based primarily upon the fact that bishop Irenaeus in Lyons denounced this Judas gospel in writing around AD 180.

 This Gnostic text gives us a very different account of Jesus’ earthly ministry and his relationship to His 12 apostles. Here in brief is what “Judas” teaches:

Like other Gnostic texts, “Judas” presents a complex polytheistic universe. Great space is donated to telling the reader about the complex relationships between divinities.
* The Jewish God of the Old Testament is actually 3 lesser gods (El, Nebro (rebel), Saklas (fool) – they are the claimed creators of the physical world. The supreme God is unknown and indescribable.
* Some humans have a “divine spark”; Jesus had so in a special way.
* Judas had it as well. Only he knew the truth about Jesus’ true identity. His confession to Jesus is reminiscent of Peter’s confession recorded in Matthew 16.
* The Judas gospel has Jesus laughing at the other apostles’ understanding and observance of the Eucharist. This, he says, is an act of worship to a false god (undoubtedly referring to the God of the Old Testament).
* There is a “prediction” of the emergence of the Orthodox Church based upon the 11 apostles’ doctrines.
* Judas betrayed Jesus at his insistence. This freed Jesus from his physical constraints and allowed him to return to the realm of the divine
* Jesus did not come to save us from the penalty of sin, but ignorance. Only when a person with the divine spark comes to realize his true nature can he receive the promise of returning to the divine realm once his flesh dies.
* Reconciliation to God is not the goal since the Old Testament God is seen as a “bloodthirsty rebel.”
Though the initial claim of the critic is that this “gospel” throws the New Testament record into question, the exact opposite is actually the case. Nine undeniable facts of history relevant to the Judas “gospel” must be noted (listed below as points a-i):

 a. Orthodox Christianity won
Absolutely no one can argue against this point. All agree that orthodox Christianity, including the 27 books of the New Testament believed to be authoritative, became the dominant view above all others. Over time, all other views, including the Gnostics’, were virtually eradicated. How did this happen, and why?

Theories abound. The popular view today is that the early church was a power hungry monolith bent on squashing the views of anyone that disagreed with them. In today’s pluralistic society a group claiming to be the only source of truth regarding a particular topic (in this case the nature of Christ) is immediately seen as suspect, and this goes in spades for a group whose views eventually came to dominate. This is linked to the well-worn claim that “it’s the winners that get to record history.”  Remember though, that this claim about the winners recording history, or the church’s supposed tyrannical nature are really red herrings. Whether or not leaders in the church were tyrannical or unduly harsh with their opponents who had a different view of Jesus is entirely beside the point.  The real issue here is whether or not the Church’s view of Christ was accurate. One could just as easily argue that the Church emerged victorious because its view of Christ was demonstrably the correct one.

b. N.T. Gospels are older
There is universal agreement on this point. No scholar in the world would argue that the canonical gospels are later than the first century. This means that the earliest extant sources we have documenting the life of Jesus were written probably within the lifetimes of the various witnesses. These are the gospels found within our New Testament.

The Gnostic gospels, on the other hand, simply cannot be dated to anything earlier than the middle of the second century – more than 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Of course, being written closer in time to the events they describe does not automatically prove that the canonical gospels are accurate. However, their early date must certainly lead us to at least consider the possibility, especially when we consider how fast and how far faith in the Christ of these gospels spread throughout the first and second centuries. Again, the facts would lead an honest person to favor the New Testament Gospels over the Gnostics’ as far as accurately depicting Christ and His ministry.

c. The New Testament Gospels are more historic in nature
This point is a bit subjective but nonetheless valid upon close inspection. In the Gnostic literature, a great deal of emphasis is placed on explaining the origin and function of a multiplicity of divine beings and the realms they inhabit. Emphasis is also placed on explaining the supposed “true” nature of humanity and its link with the divine. Intriguing as these doctrines may be, they are absolutely impossible to verify historically.

The canonical Gospels on the other hand, seem to be primarily concerned with what Jesus and His followers actually said and did, and various responses from those they encountered. Remember that these written accounts date to within a generation or so of the events they describe and they were being propagated in the midst of a hostile environment (both the Romans and the Jews stood against the growing movement). Being historic in nature, the opponents of Christianity certainly had motive to uncover historic evidence contrary to the Church’s claims. Apparently none was ever offered. This is especially telling seeing as several prominent people such as Herod, Pontius Pilate, and Joseph of Arimathea, who was a prominent council member, are mentioned throughout the canonical Gospels. So now we must acknowledge that it was these Gospels, historic in nature and closer in time to the events they describe, that enjoyed the widest acceptance. Perhaps this was so simply because it was these Gospels that demonstrably reflected the truth about Jesus and the Church He began. Somehow the scoffers don’t seem to want to admit this could even possibly be the case.

d. Both claimed Apostolic Authority
This is another inescapable fact. Both the Orthodox Church and the Gnostics claimed that they represented the true teachings of Jesus Christ. Both claimed a direct link to the original apostles and pointed to various writings that were claimed to come from the apostles themselves. Among the Nag Hammadi texts for example, were found the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Apocalypse of Paul, and The Letter of Peter to Philip to name a few. Of course the Orthodox Church also claimed apostolic authority for their own Gospels. Matthew, an original apostle, was said to be the writer of the first Gospel, and John the writer of the last. Mark was said to have gotten the information for his Gospel from Peter, who was one of the twelve, while Luke claimed to have conducted extensive research in compiling the facts about Jesus’ life and ministry. Which view, if any, ought we to believe here?

Popular opinion states that the canonical Gospels were originally anonymous, but later had these names attached to them in order to make them more authoritative. This is an assertion made at the onset of the investigation, not a conclusion drawn from it. The idea breaks down when one realizes that had this been true, a great deal of confusion and debate would have resulted regarding the authorship question. Historically not a whisper of any such debate has been detected. Secondly, one wonders why a person seeking to endow his “gospel” with authority would have chosen Matthew, the despised tax collector, who was not one of the “inner” group of apostles (Peter, James and John).  Mark was not an apostle or, as far as we know, an eyewitness to the events he describes either. Why would a person attach his name to their anonymous gospel? The same question could also be applied to the Gospel of Luke. John is the only exception. A person might attach his name to a document in order to make it sound more authoritative. Notice that in the Gospel of John, the one apostle’s name that is completely absent from the narrative is John himself. This, along with the fact that this Gospel contains many eyewitness details, familiarity with the geopolitical picture of first century Israel and the social milieus of the day, has led many notable scholars to conclude that the fourth gospel was in fact penned by John the apostle.

e. The Church appealed to research; bishop lists
With both sides arguing that their particular views of Christ and Christianity represented apostolic teachings, it became necessary to demonstrate that this assertion was indeed true. As early as the middle of the second century, the Church appealed to the great unanimity of their faith throughout the Holy land, through Asia Minor and Rome, and presented bishop lists from each of the major cities. It was claimed that an unbroken succession of Church leaders in each of these cities could be traced back to the apostles themselves. Eusebius (AD 324) cites the research of Hegesippus (c.AD 150) in this connection:

“Among those flourishing in the church at this time were Hegesippus, whom we met earlier, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, Bishop Pinytus of Crete, Philip, Apolinarius, Melito, Musanus, Modestus, and above all Irenaeus. Their orthodoxy and ardour for the apostolic tradition have reached us in written form. Hegesippus has left a full record of his beliefs in five books that have come down to us. In them he tells of travelling to Rome and finding the same doctrine among all bishops there. After some comments about Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he writes,
‘The Corinthian Church remained in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I conversed with the Corinthians on the voyage to Rome, and we were refreshed by the true doctrine. After arriving in Rome, I compiled the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. In each succession and in every city, preaching corresponds with the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.” 2

f. Gnostics appealed to “secret” knowledge
The Gnostics on the other hand claimed that the apostolic teaching they received had been done so in secret. It is interesting to note that a claim like this would explain the apparent lack of historic evidence linking the original apostles to the various Gnostic groups. One might be forgiven for wondering whether or not this was simply a “just so” story to account for the Gnostics’ inability to demonstrate a compelling historic link between themselves and the historic Jesus.

g. New Testament “openness”
The very heart and soul of these two belief systems – Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism – is radically different. The basic tenant of Gnosticism is that “secret” knowledge must be attained. Secrecy is an integral part of the Gnostic worldview. In contradistinction to such guarded secrecy, biblical Christianity was and is a transparent belief system. Remember that Jesus instructed His men to preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:27 are unambiguous:

“What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.”

Perhaps the most definiative statement concening the “openess” of Christ’s teachings is found in John 18:19-20:

"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue,and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

Consider now that the more “open” of the two views is also the one that happens to have been defended by its proponents on historic grounds. Again, the transparency of the New Testament record and its propagation, especially in the midst of a very hostile climate, would have made its claims testable historically.

Again, no compelling historic arguments (as far as I know) were ever advanced, either by the Gnostics or anyone else for that matter.

h. “Judas” undercuts the other Gnostic “gospels”
We must pause for a moment and reflect upon the fact that assessing a truth claim, the most basic fundamental test that we can apply is the test for internal consistency. Such a test may be applied to anything from a simple statement of supposed fact to a large, complex worldview. In this case, let us subject two such worldviews – Orthodox Christianity and the Christianity propagated by the Gnostics. History reveals very clearly that Orthodox Christianity never had any trouble recognizing the authority of the canonical Gospels and their link with the original apostles. This has been asserted by the Church from the very beginning. Christian Gnosticism simply cannot claim the same internal consistency.

Remember that a significant community within the Gnostic camp did try to connect themselves and their doctrines to the original apostles. This is undeniable historically. Remember that among the Nag Hammadi texts we find writings with the names Peter, Philip and Thomas attached. Some today might argue that here among these writings we have a more legitimate connection to the historic Jesus and His original followers than in the canonical Gospels. Perhaps, but people claiming such things would not be able then to use the gospel of Judas in the same manner. Why? Because throughout the Judas gospel there are constant references to the other eleven apostles as being uninformed buffoons. Judas is the real hero. Only he knows the truth about who Jesus is. There is simply no indication anywhere in the Judas gospel that any of the eleven apostles would ever attain the special secret knowledge possessed by Judas. Quite the contrary in fact. The gospel includes “prophecies” that they would go on worshipping their false God (the God of the Old Testament) and recruiting a significant base of followers (the Orthodox Church).

So here we see quite a change in attitude taking place; a significant “flip flop”. On the one hand the Gnostics claimed that they were connected to the original apostles, and then later vehemently claimed otherwise. Why? Might it not be that their attempts at demonstrating this “fact” historically had utterly failed? Some might argue that the change within Gnosticism went the other way. Perhaps mainstream Christian Gnostic thought originally had distanced itself from the eleven apostles. Perhaps they originally held that Judas was the hero. What then caused the change? If the history presented in Judas is really grounded in solid historic fact, why was it so easily abandoned?  It simply must have been abandoned if the Gnostics later began claiming connection with the other eleven apostles. So here we have a real dilemma for those who would have us believe that the Gnostic gospels – including Judas –are somehow a better vehicle for observing the historic Jesus and the original movement He established.

i. Gnostics admitted the church’s apostolic connection     
Here’s where the gospel of Judas becomes a very powerful witness for Orthodox Christianity. The “prophecies” concerning the Church and its pernicious beliefs are littered throughout the “gospel” Judas. It is absolutely clear that whoever wrote this document understood that the Orthodox Church was indeed connected to the original apostles of Christ. Remember that these were competing worldviews here, with each claiming to present a more reliable view of Christ and His teachings. For the Gnostic writer of “Judas” to admit that the Orthodox Church was in fact connected to the original apostles and upheld their doctrines is very significant. It shows us clearly that the historic case put forward by the church must have been persuasive. The unbiased observer of these facts must admit that in our effort to uncover who the historic Jesus really is, it makes much more sense to consider the opinions of those that knew the man and those that propagated their teachings.