The "Gospel of Judas" Revisited

You may remember that nearly two years ago, in early 2006, the National Geographic Society (NGS) published something that was supposed to change, or at least challenge, the way we viewed Judas Iscariot and his relationship with Jesus Christ. It was the first English translation of a second century Gnostic writing, discovered in the 1970s, called the Gospel of Judas. The NGS translation presented Judas not as a traitor, but as the hero of the story, the close confidant of Jesus, the one among the Twelve who truly got what Jesus was teaching, who was only following Jesus’ orders when he betrayed the Lord. This translation was followed in April 2006 by a highly touted TV special.

It seems now that National Geographic won’t be able to simply let their sensational claims stand. Their challenge is being challenged. On December 1, 2007 the New York Times published an Op-Ed piece titled “Gospel Truth” written by April D. DeConick, a professor of Biblical Studies, Rice University in Houston, TX. Professor DeConick, who specializes in early Christian thought, translated the original Coptic text for herself. In her Op-Ed response to NGS, Professor DeConick says, “It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.”

She defends her position in the article and expands on it significantly in her latest book, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. In the book she says,

I didn’t find the sublime Judas, at least not in the Coptic. What I found were a series of translation choices made by the National Geographic team, choices that permitted a Judas to emerge in the English translation who was different from the Judas in the Coptic original. In the original, Judas was not only not sublime, he was far more demonic than any Judas I know in any other piece of early Christian literature, Gnostic or otherwise. (p. 4)

I have to make two disclaimers here: I haven’t read Professor DeConick’s book yet, and I’m out of my element when it comes to her field of study. But I have read excerpts and reviews of her book on Amazon. She also has a blog where she has posted several articles on this ongoing academic debate. I recommend spending some time on her blog getting familiar with the issues.

My impression from reading Professor DeConick is that the main issue in this debate is academic integrity. Did NGS make a mistake? Did they purposely mistranslate the text and mislead people to create a sensation for whatever reason? NGS posted a response to DeConick’s book on their website on December 21. The writer gives an interesting quote from one of the NGS translators:

Marvin Meyer is one of the translators who National Geographic enlisted. He said he welcomes additional interpretations of the Gospel of Judas.

"It doesn't come as any surprise whatsoever to find out that there would be another kind of interpretation," said Meyer, a biblical scholar at Chapman University in California.

"What is remarkable is the extent to which what was presented early on still has carried the day with us and most people."

I’d like to make two observations. First, it seems to me that the issue here is translation, not interpretation. Second, it also seems that what is important to the NGS translators is not necessarily accuracy in translation, but the impact that their work has made. They are remarking how their work “carried the day.” People typically respond to sensational claims, especially those attempting to discredit something in the Bible.

I say that academic integrity seems to be the main issue in the debate between NGS and Professor DeConick and others because the professor isn’t a conservative believer. She describes herself as liberal in her beliefs but is interested in “genuine historical work.” She seems to be fair-minded and respectful in her writings.

So why is this even worthy of our notice? I doubt if any Bible-believing Christian was shaken by the claims of the NGS. But reasons exist for taking note of scholarly studies done by non-believers.

• We need not fear scholarship. True scholarship is thorough and honest and can only corroborate the Book we believe, or at least not contradict it. History is on our side.
• These are the types of people we sometimes deal with in our everyday relationships. It will help us if we’re familiar with current theological issues and not taken by surprise by academic opposition, knowing that the latest sensations are nothing new (Gnosticism certainly isn’t).
• It will also help us to keep in mind that we and our conservative beliefs are in the minority, also something not new. The Bible calls God’s people a remnant.

The world loves to remind us that not everyone believes as we do. It will take some of the wind out of their sails if we already know this and are not distressed, but exhibit calm confidence in God and genuine Christ-like compassion for the opposers.

The "Gospel of Judas" Revisited