THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS
The
first time I heard of the Gospel of Judas was about five years ago,
when I got a call from someone who said, I have a book for you to
edit—the Gospel of Judas. That astonished me, since I knew that the
"church father" Irenaeus had mentioned such a gospel nearly 2000
years ago, denouncing it as terrible blasphemy: but no one had ever
seen it, or known whether it actually existed.
But
this dealer in Cleveland was telling me he had it there. Was he
telling the truth? I called the Met, the Getty, and the Frist to ask
about him, and they told me that he is a reputable dealer
who has important material—but when I called back he suddenly
stopped answering the phone. I realized then what already had seemed
likely—that the book had been stolen from Egypt, and could not be
legally sold.
I
located a man who often bought rare books from this dealer, and who
also has given many of them to Princeton, hoping that he might buy
the Gospel of Judas, give it to Princeton, and then return it
formally to Egypt, which would legalize the arrangement. Then we
could photograph and publish it—that was the plan.
So I
went to Madison Square Garden to meet the dealer, and confronted
him: "I'm Elaine Pagels, why won't you talk to me?" Startled, he
explained what we had suspected—that the owner of the text had told
him not to talk about it, since it had been bought illegally. He
then invited me out to Cleveland to see it, and I went, and looked
at it. And there was the title—"The Gospel of Judas" in Coptic—and
then he showed me the following five pages—which turned out to be
five pages of rather uninteresting Coptic text. So I said, Okay,
well, they've hyped it, they were hoping to get fifteen million
dollars—it's not what they said.
But
when suddenly it resurfaced last year, and I was asked to be on the
advisory committee presenting it publicly, I learned what had
happened: the dealer didn't realize that when you have a Greek or
Coptic text, the title is often placed at the end of the
text. It turns out that the previous 26 pages were the
actual Gospel of Judas—a fascinating dialogue between Jesus and
Judas about what happened when Judas handed Jesus over for
arrest—and why he did it. Startlingly, this gospel presents Judas
Iscariot as Jesus' favorite disciple, the only one whom he trusts
with his deepest mysteries. And all the other disciples appear as
people who completely missed the message of Jesus, and entirely
distorted it—and this is what has come down to us as "Christianity."
Many
people see the main message of Jesus as "Jesus died for your
sins"—and see Jesus' death as a sacrifice God requires to forgive
human sins. This gospel asks, What does that make of God? Is he a
bloodthirsty pagan god who demands human sacrifice? The God
of Abraham prevented Abraham from offering his son as a
sacrifice—does the God of Jesus then require it?
Second, we've all heard of Christian martyrs. This text sees
Judas dying as a martyr—because here the other disciples hate
him so much that they kill him! But the Gospel of Judas challenges
the idea that God wants people to die as martyrs—just as it
challenges the idea that God wanted Jesus to die. Whoever
wrote this gospel—and the author is anonymous—is challenging church
leaders who teach that. It's as if an imam were to challenge the
radical imams who encourage "martyrdom operations" and accuse them
of complicity in murder—the Gospel of Judas shows "the twelve
disciples"—stand-ins for church leaders—offering human sacrifice on
the altar—and doing this in the name of Jesus! Conservative
Christians hate gospels like this—usually call them fakes and the
people who publish them (like us) anti Christian. There was a great
deal of censorship in the early Christian movement—especially after
the emperor became a Christian, and made it the religion of the
empire—and voices like those of this author were silenced and
denounced as "heretics" and "liars." The story of Jesus was
simplified and cleaned up—made "orthodox."
But
what really happened in the early movement is far messier, more
intriguing, and more human. These recently discovered sources show
us what was censored—and what those who didn't become "orthodox"
were saying. For this is the only gospel we've ever seen that shows
Jesus laughing at his disciples—because they have distorted his
message and gotten it so wrong. What we have here is evidence of how
some people in the early movement were struggling with the story of
how Jesus died, betrayed by one of his own men. We don't have any
stories of Jesus written down within 40 years of his death, but
after that time many people wrote down accounts of what happened.
One of the most puzzling parts of the story is that people knew
that Judas Iscariot, one of his closest followers, had handed him
over to the people who arrested him, and to the Roman authorities
who killed him. The question was, Why? What was the motive? Why
would Judas do that?
The
earliest account that we have, Mark's account in the New Testament,
gives no answer at all: it simply says that this is what happened.
Judas handed him over—no motive given. The second account was by
Luke who read the first, and apparently found it inadequate. Feeling
that he had to suggest a motive, Luke retold the story saying that
Satan, the power of evil, entered into Judas Iscariot and made him
do it. Satan embodied the evil power that opposed the divine spirit
in Jesus—so Luke says—and that is why Jesus was overcome and killed.
A
third account, that of the New Testament gospel of Matthew, offers
a different motive: he did it for money. The way Matthew tells the
story is that Judas went to the chief priest and said, what will you
give me if I hand him over to you? And having gotten a certain price
he agreed to do it—so, according to Matthew, the motive was
obviously greed.
This
new account, the Gospel of Judas, says that Jesus not only
anticipated that he would die and went into it with his eyes open,
so to speak, aware that this somehow had to happen because there was
a deep mystery in it, asked Judas to perform this act as a friend,
and that Judas was the only one who could and would do it, and the
others completely misunderstood it and took it as betrayal.
Matthew's gospel says Judas was so remorseful he went out and hung
himself. But this gospel says the others stoned him to death, out of
rage. So it's a very different kind of account.
When
the National Geographic first heard that there was such a Gospel of
Judas, several experts interpreted it the way we have basically
always have interpreted Gnostic text. When we first heard about
Gnostic texts, we were told that they were "weird"—"Gnostic", that
meant they were the wrong kind of gospel, not like the "real"
gospels.
But
when (Harvard Professor) Karen King and I approach these texts, we
treat each as another Christian gospel—another way that this
powerful and strange and tangled story of betrayal was told by
Jesus' followers in the decades after his death. We can't assume it
tells us much about what happened between Jesus and Judas—it's
probably guesswork, like all the other gospels—but it also offers a
lot more than that: it places us right in the heart of the
historical situation in the generations after his death.
Anyone who joined this movement was aware that he or she could be
killed for it, as many had been—Jesus' closet disciple Peter was
crucified by the Romans, Paul was beheaded, while other followers of
Jesus, like his brother James and his follower Stephen, were lynched
by public mobs and riots. It was very dangerous to be a part of this
movement. And one of the most troubling problems with anybody
associated with it was, what do you do if you're arrested? What do
you do, knowing that this could happen? Do you run? Do you accept
persecution as if this were something God wanted? There is a Jewish
tradition about persecution and about martyrdom which sees dying for
God, as they called it, as a way of witnessing God's power. The
followers of Jesus argued intensely about that question. And the
Gospel of Judas is one of the writings that comes out of these
intense, painful arguments involving the threat of violence—arrest,
threat of torture and public execution. This shows us what DIDN'T
become Christianity—and casts very new light on what did.
For
when Jesus' followers tried to make sense of how their messiah died,
some suggested that Jesus died as a sacrifice—"he died for our
sins." The idea that Jesus' death is an atonement for the sins of
the world becomes the heart of the Christian message, for many. It's
certainly the heart of the New Testament gospels. There Jesus,
before he dies, tells his disciples, when you eat this bread you're
eating my body, which I'm giving for you; you're drinking my blood
when you drink this wine. Because I'm giving my body and my blood as
a voluntary sacrifice for you. So the worship of Jesus' followers
became a sacred meal in which people drank wine and ate bread,
ceremonially reenacting the death of Jesus.
We
call it the Eucharist, the Mass. We're so used to it we hardly see
that it's a cannibalistic feast. But whoever wrote the Gospel of
Judas has Jesus laughing at the disciples, to say, what you're
doing is ludicrous. Turning the death of Jesus into something like
an animal sacrifice. Eating flesh and drinking blood ritually, even,
is a kind of obscene gesture. This author, this follower of Jesus,
sees the idea of Jesus dying for our sins as a complete
misunderstanding of the whole message of Jesus.
So,
although the Gospel of Judas is an authentic early Christian
document, it was early condemned as "blasphemy". We don't know
whether this actually IS what Jesus taught—for although New
Testament Gospels say that Jesus did teach secret teaching, they
don't tell us what it was. But we do have many new texts that show
us secret teaching, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary
Magdalene, the Gospel of Phillip. And probably Jesus, like other
first-century rabbis, taught one kind of message in public, with
thousands of people listening, and other kinds of teaching in
private. We don't think the Gospel of Judas belongs in the canon—but
we also don't think it belongs in the trash: instead it belongs in
the history of Christianity—a history that now, in light of all
these recent discoveries, we now have to rewrite completely. |