A Gospel According to Judas ? (Part II)
Of all the articles written on the Gospel of Judas, A Real Discovery or Gross Betrayal is one of the best I’ve read to date. So good, that I’ve decided to reproduce it verbatim in this post.
The article was written by Dr Tan Kim Huat, a professor of the New Testament at the Trinity Theological College, Singapore, and published in the Straits Times on 15 April 2006.
The discovery of the Gospel of Judas has given rise to great media excitement which, in turn, has stoked public interest in the development of early Christianity.
A typical assessment of its value was that given by Dr Elaine Pagels (Gospel of Judas revives old debate; ST, April 12).
Dr Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University in the United States, made two central claims :
- that the Gospel of Judas opens up new perspectives on familiar Gospel stories; and
- that it explodes the myth of a monolithic Christianity by showing how diverse the early Christian movement really was.
This is fine rhetoric but when the dust settles and people have a chance to reflect more objectively, it will be seen that the Gospel of Judas is not what it is touted to be.
Its existence has been known to the Chruch since AD180 through the work of Iraneaus (Against Heresies) but its discovery affords us an opportunity to read the actual contents of this document for the very first time.
And what do we find when we analyse the contents ? They add precious little to what we already know through the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945. These documents have been given the label "Gnostic literature" by many scholars.
The Gospel of Judas champions Judas by portraying him as the perceptive and obedient disciple who was instrumental in setting Jesus free from the flesh that clothed him, and not the mercenary betrayer that Christian tradition has made him out to be.
Furthermore, in contrast to the clueless apostles, Judas was given esoteric knowledge by Jesus. The document also speaks of the creator of the cosmos as the lesser god.
These are stock ideas of the Gnostic literature. Such ideas are not new to Christian theologians, as Gnostic literature has been a staple subject for study in Christian seminaries for centuries.
Those who tout the importance of the Gospel of Judas admit just as much, although they warn against understanding the term "Gnosticism" perjoratively. Instead, they press for Gnosticism to be recognised as a legitimate alternative to the Christianity that is known to millions today.
Their case is that Christianity was diverse in its nascent period and it was through some powerful political manoeuvring that Christianity came to be what it is today.
This then is really the nub of the issue. Is Gnosticism a variety of Christianity or is it a mutation so dangerous that it should be treated as heresy ?
The discovery of the Gospel of Judas does not add to out knowledge of second century Gnosticism; it only provides an opportunity to highlight an ongoing debate.
Recently, Gnosticism has become the proverbial underdog and earned the sympathy of many. But what is seldom considered is this : What is the established Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) accept Gnosticism as a legitimate form of Christianity ? I can think of four fallouts that may persaude many to fight for a different underdog.
The first fallout is that the Church will prize esoteric knowledge above exoteric knowledge (that is, knowledge that is open and intelligible to the public) because Gnosticism feeds on the distinction between these two forms and privileges the former.
Esoteric knowledge will favour the few and give rise to elitism. The dangers of this are apparent to all. Chruch leaders will then be brokers between the divine and their charges. Scripture will not be the brake but the accelerator impelling the Church to slide down the slope of exploitation and corruption.
The second fallout is this : Creation will be deemed to be unimportant - even evil - since it is the work of a lesser god who fell from his / her pristine purity. It follows that the earlier we are set free from the body, the better it will be for us. The earlier that matter is obliterated, the better it will be for the spirit. Not only will this disparage the body but also all of creation. Even without this emphasis, as a human race we are finding it hard to cope with out profligate ways of denuding the earth. What if this Gnostic tenet becomes the express dogma of the Church ?
The third fallout follows on from the second. History and cultural rootedness will be sacrificed. Gnostic literature shows one glaring lack when compared to the four canonical Gospels : the Jewish background of Jesus is not mentioned at all. Why this is so could be anybody’s guess. It could be that it was inspired by what is now termed as anti-Semintism or it could be that it emphasised the grand universal at the expense of the particular.
Over the years, the Church has been challenged in many ways to avoid taking this road. If such a road is now sanctioned, who knows what will happen to Jews or other cultures in places where the Church is prominent ?
It is thus a mystifying phenomenon that many post-moderns who support the Gnostic movement cannot perceive that it actually leads to the creation of what they fear most : a meta narrative of the grossest kind.
The fourth fallout is that what has been held dear by many Christians - the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday - will be stripped of their significance because the Gnostic literature does not offer accounts of Passion Week, omits the crucifixion of Jesus and, consequently, plays down the importance of the resurrection.
It was faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ that sustained many early Christian matyrs and many beneficient enterprises of the Chruch. Theologically speaking, these events sound the message of the One Creator who was so committed to His creation that He gave Himself for its redemption. A Gnostic Christianity will only emphasise knowledge and self-help.
When the above scenario is envisaged, it is not surprising that Iraneaus and his many comrages thought it imperative that Gnosticism should not hold sway. Of course, if this was how Christianity was at the very beginning, these converts could have easily given up their faith.
There was no incentive to keep it anyway, since it led to persecution by the Roman Empire. But they knew that Christianity at its beginning was not so and they sought to prevent their flock from espousing this mutated form of Christianity.
And this is something that all supporters of the Gnostic movement are aware of - their documents are at least a hundered years later than the four canonical Gospels and they do not give us any knowledge of first century Christianity.
It is commendable to fight for the underdogs but we have to make sure they are really what we want to fight for.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The 4 canonical Gospels, along with the Gnostic Gospels, were part of the 30 Gospels that were written about the same time, although scholars have found evidence that some Gnostic Gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas was written before the canonical Gospels and that the Gospel of John was probably written to refute Thomas.
Scholars, unswayed by orthodox views, do see all these Gospels to be equally valid as they were all written almost 100 years after Jesus’ death and their writers were never identified. Please note that these Gospels were based on oral traditions and were thus subject to discrepancies.
We can disregard the words of Irenaeus, one of the founding fathers of the Church, when he wrongly claimed that insisted that Jesus did not teach any of his disciples secretly; such secret revelations, he said, were all illegitimate, and those who revered them heretics. He had no proof and the canonical Bibles supported the views that Jesus did have talks or informal teaching with each disciple in private. To claim that Jesus had no private time with any of his disciple is unbelievable. Even the Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus explained things to certain disciples in private.
As for the charge that the Gnostic Gospels are about hearsay or mythology, kindly note that these Gospels represent the Snake and the Apple story, Adam and Eve as moral fables, not actual historial events. You have to thank the Christian orthodoxy for pushing these “myths”.
The Gospels of John and Thomas have a lot in common. They are both different from the other gospels we know, as symbolic and poetic interpretations of Jesus’ teaching. But they have a very different practical turn. They both speak about Jesus as the divine light of the world that comes into the world, and the divine energy of God manifested in human form. But the message of the Gospel of John is that Jesus alone is that divine presence among us. Thomas’ gospel suggests that Jesus taught something quite different, which is that everyone, in fact all being, came from that divine source [and that we can access that divinity on our own].
There were also people who read the Gospel of John and Thomas’ gospel as entirely compatible in texts and poems such as the Round Dance of the Cross or the Gospel of Truth, that uses passages from both Thomas and John.
Simply put, the teaching of Jesus was recorded and transmitted in various ways. These suggestions [of divinity within oneself] are written in all the Gospels, a view held by the Gospel of Thomas, which also held that Jesus was a teacher, not as a son of god, who wanted all of us can find our own way to access the divine spark in all of us, which refers to our conscience which drives our ability to differentiate right from wrong.
This drew the ire of the writer behind the LATER Gospel of John who pushed for the view that Jesus alone offers access to salvation and that believing in him is the only way to truth, and that not believing is a sure path to damnation.
Kindly note that no one can claim to have a solid knowledge of Christianity if he or she has read only 4 (Mark, Matthew, John and Paul) Gospels out of the 30 Gospels written at the time. Nor should one blindly follow the dictates of the Orthodoxy.
The Protestant movement helped brought the Church out of the dark ages of its theocratic rule over Europe by asserting that Christians should have the right of direct access to Christian writings, instead of going through the clergy, to read for themselves and to connect with god directly.
Thus the acceptance of all Christian writings falls very well within this enlightened view. A narrow literalist view of the Bible constrains a Christian to be like a frog within a well, who thinks the whole world is the well itself.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Hi.
Thank you for your comments. It is interesting to hear another perspective.
Your arguments are attractive but, unfortunately, somewhat contradictory. Therefore, I must respectfully say that I do not find them persuasive.
Whether one is swayed by orthodox views or not, I’m not certain that “all gospels are equally valid”. With so many texts proclaiming different variations of the “truth”, which contradict each other in some very material ways, surely not all the “truths” are equally valid ? In this connection, you pointed out that the Gospel of John was written to “refute the Gospel of Thomas”. If that is the case, then at least John and Thomas cannot both be valid.
I would add that precisely because there are so many texts proclaiming different variations of the “truth”, it is necessary for Christians to discern and be personally convinced (as opposed to “blindly following the dictates of orthodoxy”, as you say) as to which of these texts are true (and false, to the extent that it is necessary for the ordinary Christian to be knowledgeable in other “gospels” for this purpose). I gladly agree with your analysis that Protestantism has brought Christians out of the “dark ages” , but the right of direct access of the scripture and to God (without the need for a human priest-mediator) is not a license for Christians to accept all sorts of
teachings about Christianity without discerning what is the truth. Claiming that “all these Gospels are equally valid” cannot by any measure be considered an exercise in discernment. In this regard the apostle Paul warns Christians in Galatians 1 : 8 that
“… some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned !”
As for your comment that “to claim that Jesus had no private time with any of his disciple is unbelievable”, I don’t think any one (but the most unenlightened and dogmatic of Christians) would be so foolish as to claim that ! In fact, John points out in his gospel that “Jesus did many other things as well [ during His time on earth, which would include teaching His disciples personally ]. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21 : 25). However,
being aware that Jesus did and said things not recorded in the four gospels does not mean that we should blindly accept everything taught about Jesus. Whatever Jesus’ other deeds and teachings there may be, these would not have contradicted Jesus’ deeds and teachings as recorded in the four gospels. To the extent that these supposed deeds and teachings as recorded outside the four
gospels contradict the four gospels, we must, as I’ve said before, discern which text is true.
I would end by commenting on your view that “the acceptance of all Christian writings falls very well within this enlightened view”. That is like saying the acceptance of all political and economic systems, from dictatorship to monarchy, communism and capitalist-democracy, etc. is an enlightened view, which is, of course, a recipe for anarchy.
It is the prevailing cultural mood to think of the acceptance of all teachings and ideas as “enlightened”. However, in my view, true enlightenment is the ability to examine objectively all teachings and ideas so as to sift truth from falsehood, and the ability to critically discuss teachings and ideas respectfully without attacking or putting down the believer of the teaching / idea.