The Gospel of Judas

Has a text been unearthed that proves that Judas got a raw deal in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Does “The Gospel of Judas” tell the true story – or at least an alternate story?

Listening to folks talk about this “recent” discovery on television would make you think so. As The Da Vinci Code movie nears its grand opening, people are reading and thinking about “lost gospels” and alternate “Christianities” that may have been squashed by an intolerant Church.

Therefore, it’s important to clarify a few key things.

First, “The Gospel of Judas” is dated to the second century – not the first century, where virtually all researchers now date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (with John nearer to the end of the century). Therefore, the biblical gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive, and “Judas” was not. There are similar texts, such as the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Gospel of Mary Magdalene” which were also later writings that use Christian characters and ideas to promote what is generally called “Gnosticism” – a religion quite different from the (earlier) New Testament documents.

Second, Christians from the beginning recognized that there were other (false) views of the gospel in the early centuries. The various New Testament texts (the “books” of the NT) speak abundantly about “false gospels” and “false Christs.” One of the very earliest writings, the book of Galatians (written about 20 years after Jesus), says in its opening statement: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1:6-7).

Third and finally, Christianity and Gnosticism were competing religions. Yes, the Gnostics clearly enjoyed using biblical themes and characters in their writings. But so do Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others. It is an oversimplification (and in my view, a falsification) for TV experts to speak of early Christians and 2nd century Gnostics as part of the same community.

In brief, the “Judas” text will shed light on opponents of Christianity in the second century – not on the real Judas or, for that matter, the real Jesus. Here is a quote from James M. Robinson, emeritus professor at Claremont Graduate University (who has studied many such writings): "There are a lot of second-, third- and fourth-century gospels attributed to various apostles," Robinson said. "We don't really assume they give us any first century information."

This morning I read over the “Judas” text – at least a version I found on the net. This afternoon I plan to look over the “gospels” of Thomas and Mary. So I am not saying that we shouldn’t read them. In fact, reading them just may strengthen our confidence in the biblical accounts – when we see how much they differ in historical detail, theology, and spiritual power. But let’s place them in their proper historical context.