Customer Reviews

Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have just finished reading April DeConick's new book, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. So many comments need to be made directed at so many interests:

The following is from my blog where I have more posts discussing the contents and argument of this book. See http://vridar.wordpress.com

1. Firstly, the book is easily accessible to the lay reader even though it discusses technical translation issues of the Coptic, as well as some of the history of the scholarship relating to the Gospel of Judas and its broader context.

2. Secondly, for most of us who have read the National Geographic translation of the Gospel of Judas, be prepared for a radical re-think of what we have read there. The National Geographic translation depicts Judas as the only true saint; DeConick's, as the arch demon himself -- or at least destined to join with him in the end.

3. Which immediately raises the question: Why would a gospel make the central character a demon? DeConick shows how the apparent structure and thematic development of the gospel aligns it with an agenda opposing that Christianity that traced its genealogy back to the Twelve Apostles. Like the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Judas was a parody and attack on apostolic Christianity and its doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

4. Fourthly, April DeConick proposes several reasons to explain such oppositional translations:

i. She explains in easy to read terms the condition of the text and possible variations in how the original Coptic could be read;

ii. She suggests with Professor Louis Painchaud that since World War 2 and the Holocaust, and the widespread anti-Semitism preceding those years, there has been a powerful cultural need to absolve our collective guilt over the treatment of the Jews. And this compulsion has led us to reappraise our portrayals of the bad Jew/Judah/Judas embedded in our foundational Christian myth. So much for Maloney and Archer's collaboration on their fictional cum theological treatise of their Judas gospel!

iii. DeConick even has an interesting section that surveys the different films of Jesus before and since World War 2 and compares particularly the portrayal of Judas in those pre- and those post-Holocaust movies -- in the pre-war movies he was always an evil villain through and through; in the post-war movies he has been depicted with more understanding and compassion -- a well-meaning idealist who just happened not to think the same way as Jesus;

iv. DeConick gives enough information about the transmission of the text and the role of National Geographic in its initial public translation to alert the reader to possible motives and controls at work other than those normally associated with scholarly professionalism.

5. The book gives a clear overview of the nature of the Christian world in the second century, showing that Apostolic Christianity (claiming descent from the Twelve Apostles) was only one branch; others explained are Marcionites, Ebionites, the Church of the New Prophecy (Montanism) and those diverse others traditionally labeled Gnostics.

6. Sixthly, the book gives one of the most readable introductions to the intricacies of (Sethian) gnosticism I have ever read. Anyone who has started out cold and attempted to grasp the cosmology of the Sethian gnostics from the Nag Hammadi texts alone as they are presented in the most accessible translations will appreciate this the most.

7. For Gospel of Mark lovers such as myself I was especially interested in DeConick's comparisons with the theology and attitudes towards the Twelve Disciples in the Gospel of Mark. My mind cartwheeled as I read. What needs to be worked through, I was thinking, was not just the similarities between the Judas and Mark Gospels' dismissiveness of the Twelve, but the fact that both gospels are addressing in many ways the same theological (and church genealogical) issues. Could they really be separated by as much as 100 years as orthodox datings propose?

-- i. Also closely related to the Gospel of Mark is the way both that gospel and the Judas gospel demonstrate that it is the demons who have the superior understanding of who Jesus really was. (Even Peter's confession appears tainted with some form of demon-possession given that Jesus calls him Satan at the same moment as his confession.) Even the demons understand more than the apostles!

8. DeConick provides a clear and easy to read account of the "orthodox" reaction to the theology expressed in the Gospel of Judas. This culminated with Origen's formulation of the doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice as a ransom and atonement to trick the Devil and rescue humanity from his power.

9. The Thirteenth Gospel was one of the very few books where I was drawn to read all the appendices:

i. DeConick's annotated bibliography of the Gospel of Judas, second-century Christianity, the New Testament Apocrypha and Gnosis and the Gnostics;

ii. her annotated synopsis of Sethian Gospel literature;

iii. her annotated citations of the testimony from the Church Fathers on the Gospel of Judas;

iv. and finally a Q&A section with April DeConick. This summed up some of the common questions asked about the Gospel of Judas (why is it appearing only now, why such opposing translations, what is the position of other scholars given such opposing translations, early Christianity and the role of Judas. . . .)

I can see myself returning regularly to this book in future references on this blog. (Especially in relation to my special interest in studies relating to the Gospel of Mark and Christian origins.)

Almost forgot -- Yes, the book contains a complete and new translation -- with commentary -- of the Gospel of Judas.

And I have more posts with detailed accounts of this book's contents and argument on my Vridar blog [http://vridar.wordpress.com]. Check the DeConick link in the Book Reviews section there.

Does the much publicized "Gospel of Judas," released in April, 2006 by the National Geographic, truly portray a positive view of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus? Dr. April DeConick of Rice University has questioned this interpretation of the newly released text. Speaking at the Biblical Archeology Society Seminar held this past weekend in San Antonio, Texas, Dr. DeConick, who holds a chair in Biblical Studies at Rice University, summarized her conclusions based on her translation and analysis of the original Coptic text. According to Dr. DeConick the idea of a positive Judas, friend and confident of Jesus, who receives a high heavenly reward for his betrayal of Jesus, is based on a series of faulty misreadings and mistranslations of the original text. Dr. DeConick argues that the "Gospel of Judas," turns out to portray a Judas that is far more demonic than in any other piece of early Christian literature, including the traditional accounts in the New Testament Gospels.

The book surveys the story of the Judas Gospel's discovery and release and includes Dr. DeConick's translation of the Coptic as well as her analysis of the translation issues upon which a positive or negative interpretation of Judas turn. It further relates the text to its historical setting, namely the thought world of an early Christian group of Gnostics known as the Sethians. Chapter 2, titled "A Gnostic Catechism," is one of the clearest expositions on Gnosticism written for the non-specialist that I have ever seen. The book also contains three invaluable appendices: A marvelously clear and complete annotated survey of "Further Reading," a synopsis of Sethian literature, and a Q&A with Dr. DeConick in which she relates her excitement at the initial publication of the text and how she reluctantly came to question its interpretation as represented in the books and documentary produced by the National Geographic Society.

I highly recommend this new book and I look forward to the continued discussion of this fascinating ancient text.

James D. Tabor, author, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity

April DeConick's book is addressed to the general public, though it includes much information useful to scholars, such as her discussion of blatant misinterpretations of the Coptic by the original National Geographic team. (Some of these errors have been corrected in the more recently published The Gospel of Judas, Critical Edition; the French translation in that book is superior to the English one.)

Another reviewer has offered many details of the content of the book, so I need not repeat any of them. What I would like to offer is a caveat. My care in approaching this book is the result of having just finished studying the Gospel of Judas in a graduate Coptic class, in which we not only read the book in Coptic but also read some of the scholarly literature that has come out since the rather rushed initial translation published by National Geographic. April DeConick's views are an important part of the mix. Scholars have expressed a range of views on this gospel. A majority seem to reject the National Geographic view. Other views are coming out, and Dr. DeConick's view is an important alternative view, but not the only one. Read her book but also read other literature. Articles published in scholarly journals are particularly helpful, if you have access to them.

But regardless of what you read now, be aware that the study of this gospel is only two years old, and it is still in a state of rapid ferment and development. Perhaps in five years a more considered consensus may emerge, so keep your eye on it. Come back in ten or twenty years, if you can. You will see a considerable body of literature and more fully developed views. Many detailed studies of many aspects of this gospel will be needed in order to interpret it thoroughly. This just takes time, as scholars work on them in the time they have between teaching classes, which is how most of them make their living. But they are working on this gospel and will continue to do so, as the issues it raises are compelling.

DeConnick not only proposes an alternative reading of the Gospel of Judas, she also provides a readable review of Gnosticism for the novice. An excellent book!

Judas, the good guy? No, indeed! He is even worse than previously thought. A closer translation and a thorough knowledge of gnostic mythology, derived partially from Plato, shows him to be a secret agent of the devil.

The Gospel of Judas is a parody, written by someone from the Sethian subgroup of Gnostic Christians - to make mainstream Christians of the second century look asinine for relying on a demon ruler (Judas) and his minions (the twelve) for their teachings and practices. A more specific goal of the Gospel of Judas, according to DeConick, is to blast the doctrine of atonement and the effectiveness of the eucharist, on account of Judas's involvement.

Other authors rushed in to write books last year, relying on the (erroneous?) coptic translations of the National Geographic team. It will be interesting to see how this controversy falls, but I'm betting on DeConick.

I am persuaded after reading Professor DeConick's book that she has a good handle on both the literal meaning and the underlying purpose behind the Gospel of Judas.

This recently translated Gnostic gospel from the 2nd century brings to light an early type of Christianity which dissented from the apostolic form which eventually became dominant. To lend credence to her interpretation of this gospel, she reconstructs for us the state of Christianity in those early years, giving us a basic overview of the theology of that religious faction known as Sethians, as opposed to the doctrines which the early church fathers wanted to institutionalize. She then goes on to show that the terminology and symbolism of this long-lost gospel places it in the tradition of the Sethians, and that it was written as a parody of the apostolic Christians, to show that their form of worship was in error according to Sethian views. In fact, by their scenario, apostolic Christians had been duped by a powerful spiritual lord of evil into worshiping himself instead of the Highest, and good, God.

I felt Professor DeConick did a thorough and convincing job of documenting the passages from which she derived her interpretation, and also presented a wealth of corroborating background detail based on scholarly studies of the times and the various religious beliefs from which Sethian tradition was drawn. The fact that she is a respected scholar and professor of religious studies, as well as a translator of Coptic -the language in which the Gospel of Judas was written- certainly weighs in her favor as a reliable interpreter. Of course, all of this does not mean that the beliefs expressed in this gospel overturn or invalidate orthodox Christian belief. Nor does it prove anything about the historical Jesus or Judas. That is still a matter of individual belief.

The issue here is: What does the gospel actually say? This is where we get into controversy, because of the National Geographic team that originally broke the story of the (partial)restoration of this gospel to the public. Their original story seemed to turn the orthodox view of Christianity on its head by portraying Judas as a hero who acted out his role from the most pure and laudable motives.

Having watched this National Geographic special, I was shocked not only by the way in which this version of the betrayal of Christ was given great credibility through their reenactment sequences, but also by the strong suggestion that the orthodox version of Christianity, with Judas as villain, was responsible for the Holocaust. In short, it seemed to me there was an attempt to invalidate orthodox Christianity because of a supposed link to the Holocaust. I think this sensationalistic presentation certainly played on the perceptions of a public already primed by religious conspiracy theories in popular fiction.

So given this atmosphere, it seems more important than ever to establish whether such a rendering has any valid basis. If the public is going to be given opinion-molding information from the academic community, that information should be accurate enough to form a legitimate basis for that opinion. In showing through her expert analysis that Judas, even according to this Sethian gospel, was an incarnation or minion of a powerful and evil demon, the meaning of this document is completely reversed from the interpretation of the National Geographic team. Unfortunately, many people will only see the NG special without ever learning that its credibility has been seriously challenged.

I applaud Professor DeConick for her integrity and her effort to set the record straight. Whatever one's personal convictions about these matters, we surely don't need misinformation clouding the issues.

If there is only one book that you'll read on the subject of the revised translation of the Gospel Of Judas then this is it. April DeConick is the one who pointed the problem out in the first place and has stepped up to the plate to set the meaning straight. She does it without pointing any negative fingers, either, which was truly refreshing. No negativity here. DeConick, who does referr to the earlier team and their translation, is more concerned about getting her message across which is what the text says and what it means against the background of Gnostic Christianity.

Following the initial work on the Gospel of Judas from the National Geographic team and the publishing of the Coptic transcription, other scholars have had a crack at translation and interpretation and some differing and contrary opinions are emerging. A very different take has been offered by April DeConick in her recent book..

DeConick, a biblical studies scholar who also has an active and interesting blog, believes that the National Geographic team made several translation errors which led to an overall erroneous interpretation of the message of the gospel (please note that no scholar believes this text has any historical value regarding the actual events of Jesus' life; rather the interest is in what the text tells us about the beliefs of one of the many early Christian communities opposed to the "apostolic" or proto-orthodox church in the centuries before the time of Constantine). According to DeConick, while Judas does have greater understanding than the other apostles (who are completely misguided), he is nonetheless a doomed and (literally) demonic figure. So while the text is still very much in opposition to apostolic Christianity (indeed she views it as a parody of sorts), the figure of Judas is still to be seen as a bad guy, not the good guy put forth by the National Geographic team.

It is very interesting to see how a handful of translation choices could lead to such greatly contrasting interpretations of the text (although the fact that the text is missing significant passages contributes to the difficulty of all of these efforts). The most important of these choices relates to the translation of the Greek-imported word "daimon" (referring to Judas) as "spirit" by the National Geographic team, and "demon" by DeConick. According to DeConick, the word had evolved from classical times from the general idea of a spiritual entity to the specifically evil connotation by the time of "Judas". I found DeConick's arguments persuasive, but as a non-expert I look forward to reading further discussion of this by other commentators.

The book itself has additional merit for those lay readers who are interested in the subject. DeConick includes a very clear discussion of the various "gnostic" communities in play in early Christianity. She is very good specifically on the Sethian movement, to which the author of the Gospel of Judas belongs. Her exposition of the complex Sethian cosmology was very good - I had previously found this to be pretty confusing. The book also includes her complete translation, which provides the reader the context for the interpretative debate.

DeConick is of the very same mold she criticizes when she accuses the National Geographic translators of having modified the Gospel of Judas for a sensational story, for she bases her argument on little foundation just for a sensational sale.

This book is not a parody or satire or anything of the sort. The Sethian Gnostics, much of whom we know about through the works of Irenaeus and the other gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi, never wrote literature in this manner. This book, taken as a Gospel - literally, "good news" - of Judas fits the style of other Gnostic writings, i.e. The Gospel of Mary Magalene, The Apocryphon of John, etc. In these works, Christ appears to an unconventional disciple, not one of the 12 (this was the true critique of the church), and reveals to the one a sort of secret revelation. To write the Gospel of Judas off as a satire is too easy, and clearly not the truth.

DeConick bases much of her argument on the use of the word "daimon" to portray Judas Iscariot. This word was used to mean a sort of "spirit" in Platonic writings, much of which heavily influenced Gnostic thought. Although in later Christianity its meaning evolved into being strictly a "demon", this does not apply to this work, which (thanks to Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon) we know was written before 180 CE. National Geographic's translation of "daimon" as "god" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is safe to say that this word was probably intended for a neutral characterization. In the same work, as well as other Gnostic texts, the followers of the corrupt and evil Ialdaboath are often referred to as angels; this is not to portray them positively, but rather it is indicative of the neutral use of such terms.

For further reference of these subjects, read Marvin Meyer's essay "The Thirteenth Daimon: Judas and Sophia in the Gospel of Judas." Meyer is one of the chief translators of the National Geographic project. He defends his work and explains why DeConick's claims are not only unsubstantiated, but offensive and out of line.

So you don't want to believe the hype? Then don't read this book.

Good quality service, and I more than pleased thanks very much. I wil surely do business with you again