SpringfieldNewsSun.com

Your Turn: The Gospel of Judas

Extra-canonical books have some historical value, but don't share theology of the Bible

The villain in the story of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the 12 disciples, Judas Iscariot, who betrays his leader for 30 pieces of silver.

Many individuals wonder if the recent discovery of an early Christian manuscript named after this identical character may prove to be just as equally scandalous. Does this document, the Gospel of Judas, undermine Christianity or change our understanding of Judas' act of betrayal? Should we rethink the church's theology in light of this writing?

Scholars date this manuscript around the fourth century. Thus, some suggest that this gospel may originate two centuries earlier.

Scholars also recognize this gospel's Gnostic tendencies. This is significant, as Gnosticism was a chief opponent of orthodox Christianity.

This religion and philosophy rejected the visible world, proposed that a subordinate deity created the world and equated salvation with the acquisition of special knowledge. The early Church fathers were very critical of Gnostics, arguing that their teachings contradicted apostolic teaching and writings (e.g., Irenaeus, "Against Heresies").

The Gospel of Judas does appear to arise out of this movement. This recently discovered manuscript depicts Jesus providing special attention and information to Judas. These private conversations reveal that Jesus commanded Judas to betray him and that Jesus predicted Judas' ultimate end of destruction.

And yet, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John portray a far different scenario. Judas takes the initiative and looks for an opportunity to betray Jesus, brings the soldiers to Jesus and eventually regrets his own actions.

While Jesus recognizes Judas' evil intentions and encourages him to act quickly, Jesus never instructs Judas to instigate disloyalty. In fact, the Gospel of John states that Satan placed the notion of betrayal in Judas' heart (John 13:2).

Even if we take the Gospel of Judas at face value, the writing is removed from the apostolic period and rejected by orthodoxy. Early church writings as far back as the late second and third centuries bear witness to a fourfold gospel account with apostolic roots, the grounds for truth, widespread acceptance and use, and the dispersion and rejection of false writings (e.g., Muratorian Canon).

Certainly the Gospel of Judas and other extra-canonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas possess historical value by granting insight into deviant offshoots of orthodox Christianity. But to argue that such writings should be incorporated into the Christian faith fails to note the vast differences between the two expressions of Christian faith — differences so deep that neither side accepted the other in early Christendom. Clearly the Gospel of Judas does not share the same theological or historical perspectives as the four canonical gospels.

The uniqueness and vitality of the Christian faith, as well as its relevant message, maintained a solidified position during the time of the Gnostics. It undoubtedly will continue to do so in the future.

David Hoffeditz is an assistant professor of Bible at Cedarville University.