Traitor or Hero?

Traitor or Hero?

   Some years ago, the National Geographic channel ran a special on the discovery of The Gospel of Judas, a Coptic tome that was apparently part of the many discoveries at Nag Hammadi.  The book was extensively researched, not only by Coptic scholars but also by radio carbon dating and it was found to be authentic, the copy likely produced around 220-240 AD, some years after the earlier texts that comprised portions of the New Testament, the earliest of them produced around 60 AD (the original Greek document of the Gospel of Judas was thought to be written around 180 AD).  In all cases, the Apostles were long gone, their stories belatedly relayed to others orally, then to others, then to others, portions of the stories being gradually written down as their tales were passed through to different generations.  At Nag Hammadi, some 52 of these additional texts were discovered, and historians lament the fact that an unknown number were thought to be innocently burned as fuel, the farmer who discovered them not really recognizing their importance or what they were, all of which was told in detail in the excellent book, The Gnostic Gospels, by religion professor and MacArthur fellow, Elaine Pagels (the Modern Library listed her book as one of the top 100 non-fiction books of all time).


   What was interesting about the translation of Judas was the shifting of the role of Judas, a role now viewed as essential for the spread of Christianity, a role not as a traitor but as a hero, friend and the closest confidant to Jesus.  In the portrayal, Judas becomes the only Apostle to understand what Jesus was saying, even among his laughter (in the Judas text, Jesus apparently laughs quite often, even in front of the others at the Last Supper, both at their misunderstanding and their inability to comprehend what lay beyond).  It was necessary, Judas is told, necessary and important for him to carry out this exposure of Jesus to the Romans, to free Jesus' body and to allow others to see (there is no story of crucifixion in the text of Judas), to expose the anima, the soul, the inner life, something that the saint, Hidegard von Bingin, described as, "showing that his vitality is outside his body and weakness is inside and stands as if uncertain; like a person who stands at a doorway uncertain whether to stay or leave."  Judas was the only Apostle Jesus could trust to carry out this difficult task, according to the text.

   Then came later powers,  Saint Thomas Aquinas and Roman Emperor Constantine, discarding many of the Coptic texts and whittling down the narratives to only the more complete stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, stories that featured more of a life story from birth to death and life after death.  But, Elaine Pagels argues, the Coptic texts were probably meant only for advanced teaching, teachings that few could properly interpret or understand, while the other texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were simpler and able to reach a larger audience, thus aiding in the spread of Christianity.  The Coptic texts, all of them, were soon ordered destroyed and soldiers fanned out to make sure that this was accomplished.  There were to be no other viewpoints; the text of Judas was to be vanquished, Judas becoming more and more the villain as the "approved" canons of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came to show in steady progression (this was pointed out in the National Geographic special, along with the historical background of the appeasement with Rome and the Gentiles).

   Far from being even close to a Biblical scholar (indeed, I would likely fall closer to the category of "he knoweth not of what he speaks"), the show brought up several interesting points to ponder, for even the satirical Broadway play, Jesus Christ Superstar, posed the question to Jesus, "Buddha was he where it's at, is he where you are?  Could Mohammed move those mountains or was that just p.r?"  And respected scholar Elaine Pagels reminds us that the term "orthodox" means straight thinking, while "heterodox" means those exploring different views, a term that became slanted to mean heretics;  in the same way, "gnostic" in Greek meant knowledge but the label Gnostics came to mean "know-it-alls" and were thus meant to be mean beliefs to be downplayed.  Was the portrayal of Judas purposely shifted to fit a changing religion?  And if so, how far has the shift occurred from the original teachings, and is it continuing?

   Author of the book, The Lost Gospel, Herb Krosney, told NPR: I would really doubt that it (the Gospel of Judas) might be included in the New Testament.  In early Christianity, there were at least 30 potential gospels floating around, and there were dozens and dozens if not hundreds of original documents which were winnowed down at an early stage in the 3rd and 4th centuries which became the New Testament and the basis of the new religion called Christianity.  I don't think that any apocryphal document will now be accepted in the canon of orthodox Christianity.  But what this document does is it opens us up into a whole world of history that we had not been able to fully appreciate before, and it gives a new and different interpretation of both Judas and his relationship to Jesus.  I think that the gospel of Judas -the lost gospel- opens up quite a bit more of the history of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, where we really do not know a lot about early Christianity.  Early Christianity was a very diverse movement.  The split from Judaism was just occurring.  There were remnants from Jewish messianism.   We see it to some extent in the gospel of Judas - we see a whole potential history beginning to unfold, one that we have not really been able to appreciate because the 2nd and 3rd centuries have remained in considerable obscurity over the years.

   What most captivated me in the show, however, was the wording of "advanced teachings."  Even as we imagine our changing world, our vast universe, our seemingly unbridgeable reach for stars and galaxies millions of light years away, are we still trapped in a simple tale of a religion, all because we are still unable to understand it's "advanced teachings."  The Andrew Lloyd Webber play continues with it question to Jesus, "Did you mean to die like that, was that a mistake or did you know your messy death would be a record breaker?"  Which all begs the question, DID Jesus know, and did Judas know?  Was the entire scenario destined and for both men, the ultimate sacrifice?  And if there were other accounts of what happened, what have we lost by having them destroyed?  In other words, perhaps we will never be capable of understanding what's "out there," for perhaps even if we do advance to a higher stage of comprehension, our "teachings" will be gone.  It may have been a true chance of a lifetime, gone, at least until another set of texts are discovered.