Gospel of Judas Revisited

[Super_Grover]

From the Chronicle of Higher Education

chronicle.com/free/v54/i38/38b00601.htm

The Betrayal of Judas
Did a ‘dream team’ of biblical scholars mislead millions?

When the “Gospel of Judas” first came out in the popular press, a careful reading of the coverage would have alerted one to the fact that this was just a Coptic-Gnostic text written well after Jesus’ time and having little value in terms of understanding Jesus’ life, but having some value in understanding some of the Gnostics a couple hundred years after Jesus’ time (the manuscript was carbon dated to about 280 AD, but St. Iranaeus appears to have been aware of the story itself as early as 180 AD). So, if some Gnostics had thought of Judas as something of a hero and a cooperator with Jesus in Jesus’ execution, that was interesting purely as a window into the minds of those Gnostics. While some people were fascinated with this, others were not terribly interested because the views of a second century heretical sect just weren’t that intriguing.

As it turns out, the translation of Judas as hero and confidante of Jesus (the translation that sold so many books and attracted so many viewers to the National Geographic special) is allegedly quite faulty. Rather than Jesus referring to Judas as a spirit, the more honest translation may have Jesus referring to Judas as a demon. Rather than Judas being motivated to cooperate in salvation history, a more honest translation may have Judas turning Jesus over as a sacrifice to a demon-god named Saklas. Rather than the translation where Jesus supposedly said that Judas would “set apart for the holy generation,” a more honest translation may be that Jesus said that Judas would be “set apart from the holy generation.”

Theologically, what second century Gnostics did or did not believe might not of great interest to most of us today. But the linked story is quite interesting in terms of the potential dishonesty of the scholars involved, and what their motivations might have been. We will likely see more of this as Christianity-bashing becomes more of a growth industry.

 

[cienwen]

I suppose my shock is not that the dream team’s work was sub-par, but rather that someone actually made it public. These things are usually glossed over.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I certainly don’t wish to defend the sloppy work of the National Geographic team. But I want to let you know that they responded to this article here.

I have to say I am not convinced by their response.

 

[patrick457]

If I might add, in some Gnostic (we should remember that Gnosticism is a blanket term for various sects that have some common characteristics) traditions, Saklas (Aramaic sækla ‘fool’) is another name for the Demiurge (called by others as Ialdabaoth, Iao or Samael; identified by Marcionists and the Sethians as the god of the Old Testament).

In the Gospel of Judas, Ialdabaoth (under the name of Nebro ‘rebel’) is called an angel, one of the twelve angels to come “into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].”
Nebro creates six angels in addition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six in turn create another twelve angels “with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.”

Jesus said, “(Come), that I may teach you about (secrets) no person [has] ever seen. For there exists a great and boundless realm, whose extent no generation of angels has seen,(in which) there is (a) great invisible (Spirit);

Which no eye of an angel has ever seen,
no thought of the heart has ever comprehended,
and it was never called by any name.

And a luminous cloud appeared there. He said, ‘Let an angel come into being as my attendant.’

A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated.

The Self-Generated said, ‘Let (…) come into being (…),’ and it came into being (…). And he (created) the first luminary to reign over him.
He said, ‘Let angels come into being to serve (him),’ and myriads without number came into being.
He said, ‘(Let) an enlightened aeon come into being,’ and hecame into being.
He created the second luminary (to) reign over him, together withmyriads of angels without number, to offer service.
That is how he created the rest of the enlightened aeons. He made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number to assist them.

Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called ‘God.’ He…that…the image…and after the likeness of [this] angel.

He made the incorruptible (generation) of Seth appear…the twelve…the twenty-four…

He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, inaccordance with the will of the Spirit.
The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each.

The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and for each (of them five) firmaments, (for a total of) three hundred sixty (firmaments…)They were given authority and a (great) host of angels (without number), for glory and adoration, (and after that also) virgin spirits, for glory and (adoration) of all the aeons andthe heavens and their firmaments.

The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos— that is, perdition—by the Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventy-two aeons. In him the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers.
And the aeon that appeared with his generation, the aeon in whom are the cloud of knowledge and the angel, is called El…aeon…after that…said, ‘*Let twelve angels come into being *(to) *rule over chaos and the *(underworld).’

And look, from the cloud there appeared an (angel) whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood.
His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’; others call him Yaldabaoth. Another angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud.

So Nebro created six angels—as well as Saklas—to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.

The twelve rulers spoke with the twelve angels: ‘Let each of you…and let them…generation…(one line lost)…angels’:
The first is (S)eth, who is called Christ.
The (second) is Harmathoth, who is…
The (third) is Galila.
The fourth is Yobel.
The fifth (is) Adonaios.
These are the five who ruled over the underworld, and first of all over chaos.

Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after the image.’
They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe.
For by this name all the generations seek the man, and each of them calls the woman by these names.
Now, Saklas did not com(mand)…except…the gene(rations)…this…
And the [ruler] said to Adam, ‘You shall live long, with your children.’

 

[Super_Grover]

I certainly don’t wish to defend the sloppy work of the National Geographic team. But I want to let you know that they responded to this article here.

I have to say I am not convinced by their response.

Thanks.
There is this quote from the article that you posted:
“We said at the time, and reiterate now, that this was the beginning of a dialogue about what the text might mean, not the last word. We recognized that views were likely to change, and we have consistently encouraged respectful, global discourse.”

But as the article I posted points out, “The teaser on the documentary’s DVD case asks, What if this account turned Jesus’ betrayal on its head, and in it the villain became a hero?’” Their “what if” and the the question mark does not eliminate the sensationalist virtual claim inherent in the statement suggesting that this account DOES turn Jesus’ betrayal “on its head” and Judas DOES become a “hero.”

National Geographic may not have knowingly pushed for a faulty translation (if indeed it is faulty) but they knew how to chase the money, and whether they like it or not they invested some of their credibility in the notion that the text did indeed paint a radically different view of Judas.

I agree that it is an unsatisfactory response. But NG is correct that Bartlett, who pointed out others’ financial motivations and books should have, out of even handedness, pointed out DeConick’s book and the timing of her criticism.

 

[Super_Grover]

If I might add, ‘Jesus having a private discussion with one of His Apostles about things which are hidden from the others’ is basically a common motif, almost a cliche in Gnostic writings.
If we believe these writings to be all true, Jesus would have contradicting Himself as at one time, He teaches A to one Apostle and to the other Apostle, He says B!

Which is exactly why I would not have been terribly interested, from a theological standpoint, in even the most faithful translation.

Thanks, and great blog! A 15-year old devotee of the TLM and schooling people on Gnosticism??? Somebody did something right in your upbringing.

 

[patrick457]

Which is exactly why I would not have been terribly interested, from a theological standpoint, in even the most faithful translation.

Just what is it with the people of today seeming terribly interested in Gnostic writings, with a few claiming they are more ‘true’ than the Gospels?

In reading various Gnostic Gospels, I reached the opposite conclusion; I find the Jesus of the Gospels (not just the Synoptics, but even that of John) more human-like and realistic than the mystic Jesus of the Gnostics (who seems to always speak in theological jargon much more hard to understand than the parables of the Synoptics or the speeches in John).

Thanks, and great blog! A 15-year old devotee of the TLM and schooling people on Gnosticism??? Somebody did something right in your upbringing.

Um…Thanks?

It is more the fruit of study and (lots of) reading and research, I guess.

 

[jblake]

patrick457;:

If I might add, in some Gnostic (we should remember that Gnosticism is a blanket term for various sects that have some common characteristics) traditions, Saklas (Aramaic sækla ‘fool’) is another name for the Demiurge (called by others as Ialdabaoth, Iao or Samael; identified by Marcionists and the Sethians as the god of the Old Testament).

That might have been part of the reason why the first translation into English was done by a Gnostic Organization. Granted, they were Thelmic Gnostics, not Sethian, Basildean, or Valentinianism Gnostics. (I thought it was somewhat ironic that Thelemite Gnostics published it, when I studied it in 1990.)

xan

jonathon