If we think that the Gospel of Judas gives us evidence for Judas the Hero, whether historical or fictional, we might want to take another look at the Coptic.
On October 27th and 28th, 2006, Professor Madeleine Scopello convened at the Sorbonne a conference called “L’Évangile de Judas: Le contexte historique et littéraire d’un nouvelapocryphe.” The colloquium was the Gospel’s premiere in the Academy, showcasing an international body of scholars who had gathered to discuss their initial readings of this newly recovered and reconstructed text from the Tchacos Codex. There was a sense of relief that those of us in the academic “gnostic” community could finally discuss openly a gospel we had only heard about in private whispers, since the team selected by National Geographic to work on the text had been required to sign non-disclosure statements, or so I've been told.
At the Sorbonne, an array of opinions were expressed about a text whose contents were not divulged until April 9th, 2006, when National Geographic released two books for the general audience, one about its sensational recovery and painstaking reconstruction (Herbert Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot [Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006]), and the other an initial English translation and startling interpretation, that Judas was a hero, a Gnostic and a comrade of Jesus (Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, with additional commentary by Bart D. Ehrman, The Gospel of Judas [Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006]). At the same time, National Geographic aired a two-hour documentary (John B. Ford [Executive in Charge of Production], “The Gospel of Judas: The Lost Version of Christ’s Betrayal” [National Geographic Channel: April 9, 2006]), featured an article in their magazine (Andrew Cockburn, “The Judas Gospel, “ National Geographic [May 2006] 78-95), and posted on the world wide web a transcription of the Coptic text.
The release of these popular materials was the public debut of the Gospel of Judas, but the Sorbonne conference was its academic debut, the moment that can be marked as the beginning of its academic assessment. Although the twenty-five presentations were varied on topic and method, what was surprising to many present was the fact that three scholars in attendance (myself, Louis Painchaud, and John Turner) presented papers with very similar interpretations and criticisms of the team’s transcription, translation, and representation of the Gospel. Each of us had worked independently at different universities (April DeConick, Rice University; Louis Painchaud, University of Laval; and John Turner, University of Nebraska-Lincoln) and were unaware of the opinions of each other until the presentations were made.
A few weeks later, on November 10, 2006, the Department of Classic and Mediterranean Studies at the University of Chicago convened a one-day conference on the Gospel of Judas. Professor John Turner was in attendance and heard a paper read by Einar Thomassen, “Is Judas Really the Hero of the Gospel?” Professor Thomassen sent me a copy of his paper and his cogent remarks are compatible to the position that the three of us had developed independently. He acknowledges in his paper, however, that his own interpretation of the Gospel of Judas was influenced by the opinions of Professor Painchaud, who was a speaker at a Scandinavian seminar held by the Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism Nordic Network (NNGN) and devoted to the Gospel of Judas (Bergen, August 21-26, 2006).
Although we are all indebted to the painstakingly exhaustive work of the team who spent years piecing together shreds of abused papyri so that all of us could have something to read and analyze, in my opinion we are obliged as scholars to offer corrections when we think that errors have been made.
My examination of the Coptic transcription has led me to think that certain translational errors and one mistaken reconstruction of a Coptic line led the team to the erroneous conclusion that Judas is a saint destined to join the holy generation of the Gnostics. The result is that certain claims have been made by National Geographic that the Gospel of Judas says things it just does NOT say: Judas is the perfect enlightened Gnostic; Judas ascends to the holy generation; Jesus wants Judas to betray him; Jesus wants to escape the material world; Judas performs a righteous act, serving Jesus by “betraying” him; Judas will be able to enter the divine realm as symbolized by his vision of the great house; as the thirteenth, Judas surpasses the twelve disciple, and is lucky and blessed by this number.
I have been speaking to audiences about this situation in a public lecture series I started this semester, The Forbidden Gospels, and I am writing a book for general audiences (What Does the Gospel of Judas REALLY Say?) as quickly as I can. It will include a corrected translation and interpretation, one in which Judas is as evil as ever.
5 comments:
Dear Prof. DeConick,
I am pleased to read your blog and I look forward to hearing more from you. I am intrigued by this new trend in GJudas studies because it doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that if we accept this interpretation, the text simply has no story. There are no heroes, no one is saved, and the reader only learns that there is not a single disciple who actually understood. What is the message or the point?
Very careful reading of the text! Good for you. There is a point,though, and it has to do with a Gnostic critique of mainstream Christianity, using the Judas story to do so. It's a rather sophisticated argument that the Gnostics are developing, and one that we easily miss because we aren't on the "inside" of the Gnostic world. This is a text that only makes sense if you are a Gnostic. I'm writing the book right now and hope to have it to the publisher in less than two months. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks for responding. Well, if you are coming out with a book I can understand why you wouldn't want to say more. I am still skeptical, but I suppose that I will just have to see exactly what you think the message is!
Whatever one’s opinion is about what the Gospel of Judas says or does not say, one thing is clear, Judas is the central character of it. Moses like, his was the only spirit that ‘was able to stand before Him’ yet ‘he could not look Him in the eyes, and he turned his face away’.
It is my view that 'sayings' have their origins in prophets who wrote down what 'The Lord' spoke to them by the Spirit. Thus I see the Gospel of Thomas as having its origin in words written down by Judas the prophet. These were words 'spoken' to the prophet not by the 'living Jesus', but by the 'living God'’ i.e. God’s Spirit.
I see Judas as the real first century Jewish prophet. The tradition of Judas the prophet is in The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, the NT, and in a number of interpolations of writings attributed to Josephus – if one has doubts about the NT canon, one should certainly have doubts about much that is attributed to Josephus. I believe that Josephus’s original texts were heavily edited in places.
At the beginning of the first century there was a school or company or order of prophets. We know them as the sect of the Essenes. Their training base city was En-gedi. Judas became their principal. The prophets of the first century were in dispute with the priests (as reflected in the Gospel of Judas and the NT). The priests were the second order or sect of Judaism. Their training base was Qumran. From the time of their legislator Moses, there was only ever two orders of Jewish government, i.e. priests and prophets. The Pharisees were post first century.
Post a Comment