Also dubious are the claims made for the supposed startling or revolutionary qualities of the "Gospel of Judas." Nothing in it—in tone, content, or substance—differs significantly from any one of dozens of Gnostic texts whose contents we have known since at least the 19th century, with the publication of works such as the Pistis Sophia, a second- or third-century text recording a prolonged conversation between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. To appreciate just how much non-specialists already knew about the Gnostics and their worldview, look at a best-selling popular guide like the "Apocryphal New Testament" of M. R. James (1924), or read Robert Graves’ spectacular fantasy novel, "King Jesus" (1946). And both were written long before the Nag Hammadi material became available, or indeed before the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas."
Furthermore, contrary to what Pagels and others imply, scholars have realized for more than a century that early Christianity was kaleidoscopically diverse and that many weird and wonderful scriptures circulated. As early as 1893, E. J. Dillon wrote: "Nowadays, no impartial critic, or even enlightened theologian, holds to the once general belief that the four gospels of the Christian canon either headed the list of written narratives of the living and working of Jesus, or absorbed the vast mass of tradition which speedily gathered around his name."
In short, the "Gospel of Judas" tells us nothing about the historical Jesus or Judas; it adds next to nothing to our knowledge of early Gnosticism or of sectarian Christianity; and it actually adds very little indeed that was not already known from texts published a century or more ago. And this is "one of the greatest historical discoveries of the twentieth century"?
But my greater concern is not so much with this document which is interesting and tells us more about the Gnostic heresy of the 2nd-4th centuries. This is important to know about and reminds us just how vibrant early Christianity was that it could create secatrian split off groups like the Gnostics. My greater concern is the revisionist history being tauted by Elaine Pagels, Karen King, Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer and others, on the basis of such Gnostic documents, wanting to suggest that somehow, someway these documents reflect Christianity at its very point of origin— the first century A.D.
Such scholars indeed represent a small minority of NT scholarship, and in fact, like the early Gnostics, are busily creating a new myth of origins that suggests that Christianity was dramatically pluriform from the beginning. Unfortunately, as a historian I have to say that this is argument without first century evidence.
Also go check out the Volokh Conspiracy, with special attention to the comments, which show a clear trend among some to accept the notion that the canonical gospels purely the product of politics and little else. Some samples:
I was under the impression that the early Church exercised pretty stern editorial control over the gospels and it wouldnt surprise me if factual accuracy was sacrificed in favor of ideological goals. Knowing the truth is further complicated by the fact that the Church went on to become a centuries-spanning beaureacracy that would certainly have a vested interest in altering or concealing any early histories to support the stated dogma of the Church.
Don’t you mean the (we believe) earliest followers of Jesus who ultimately won the fight to represent Christianity (to most people) seem to have foreseen that opposing groups like gnostics would also wish to win this battle.
My truth is True (with a capital T) because the folks who wrote my truth kicked out the folks who wrote the other truths.
Or in short yes it does cast doubt on the traditional story of jesus. The Judes gospel forces many people to confront the fact that other other descriptions of Jesus’s life with as much apparent authority as the canon directly contradict the canon. Sure they should have already realized that the canon was formalized by political infighting hundreds of years after Jesus’s death and hence give it little to no weight whatsoever but the fact is most people have never given this serious consideration or research.
From this overview, a few conclusions can be drawn:
-
The writer’s primary purpose, so far as it can be inferred from the remnant at hand, was to denounce mainstream Christianity by associating it with the slanders that appear in other hostile sources. It is unlikely that he regarded himself as a Christian in any sense. There is no sign that his “Judas” left a line of successors or that his “Jesus” was to be worshiped or followed. In other words, the book is not the spoor of a “lost Christianity” but simply a tirade against the Christianity that we already know.
Read Previous Post