The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and His Lost Gospel.

The earliest of the canonical Christian writings (that is, those recognized by their inclusion in the New Testament) 14those that survive more or less intact 14are the epistles of Paul, written around the middle of the first century. Afterward, within a couple of decades, came the first of the four canonical Gospels, Mark, followed, a decade or so later 14possibly almost simultaneously, by Matthew and Luke who rewrote Mark and then added material that, while unknown in Mark, undoubtedly was based on traditions as old or older than Mark, but which do not survive (among these, the famous, hypothetical Gospel of Q 14which, for reasons I will not go into here, I prefer to call 1Cproto-Matthew 1D). Finally, the Gospel of John was written near the end of the first century.

Meanwhile, other epistles were being composed, which came to be attributed to Peter, James, John and others. A modern skepticism has led many scholars to look closely at all of these writings and conclude that while Paul was probably the real author of four out of the thirteen canonical epistles attributed to him, all of the other writings of the New Testament are pseudepigraphal 14that is, merely attributed to some highly respected person as the supposed author in order to bring the benefit of that person 19s recognized authority upon the book.

Some early churchmen openly recognized that some of the books that wound up in the Bible actually had been forged. For example, there was a blind churchman who led the faction that wanted to keep the Second Epistle of Peter out of the New Testament. He declared that there is no way that Peter wrote this letter. Many modern scholars agree, dating 2nd Peter to as late as the year 125, long after Peter 19s death 14thus allowing us to say that 2nd Peter was so obviously a forgery that a blind man could see it. (I wish I could claim this jest, but I think that I must have stolen it from Prof. Bart Ehrman.) But the books of the New Testament were not chosen based on scholarly evidence of their origins, but rather based on whether they expressed a theological viewpoint that conformed to what a given church or group of churches considered theologically useful and therefore theologically correct.

During the first century, the greatest division in the new Christian movement was between those Christians who remained practicing Jews and those who were gentiles or who preferred to live as gentiles. The leaders of the former included Peter and James, who made Jerusalem their headquarters, while the later group was led by Paul, who, though evidently Jewish by birth, virtually renounced Judaism and advocated the acceptance of gentiles into Christianity without requiring them to observe any Jewish customs. By the early second century, Christianity was dominated by non-Jews, and the Jewish Christian movement, having lost power, became marginalized and even came to be denounced as heretical.

Yet the gentiles did not agree among themselves what Christianity is supposed to be. From early in the second century there were several competing interpretations 14probably based on schisms that traced back into the first century, which only grew further apart as the second century wore on. Near the end of the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, wrote a book, Against Heresies, in which he demonstrated against the variety of Christianities then in existence but which differed from his interpretation. Among these betes noirs was the Gnostic heresy, a wide range of heresies that Irenaeus found particularly repugnant, but within this movement few sects were so repugnant as the Cainites, whom, Irenaeus said, had composed for themselves a book titled The Gospel of Judas. This is the earliest known mention of this book, and though it was condemned once again two centuries later by Bishop Epiphaneus, The Gospel of Judas subsequently disappeared from history until a relatively late, fourth century copy was uncovered in Egypt in the 1970s, only to wander from owner to owner for a couple of decades before any competent scholar got a good enough look at it to recognize it for what it was. It is interesting to note that, as the book under review here tells us, the French scholar Henri-Charles Puech gave, as the earliest possible date for the composition of the Gospel of Judas, the year 130 14only five years after the latest possible date for the composition of the 2nd Epistle of Peter. Both books were written long after their supposed authors had died, so that they stand almost equal as forgeries, yet one is in the New Testament while the other is not.

Professor James M. Robinson, an expert on early Christianity, draws on all of the lore surrounding Judas and the development of the early Church to guess at what is in The Gospel of Judas, despite the fact that Robinson published his book before The Gospel of Judas was published; so although he is only able to guess at what is in it, yet his guesses turn out to be quite accurate. (This is what is meant by the term 1Ceducated guess. 1D) As an outsider with knowledge of the subject, Robinson can tell us a lot about The Gospel of Judas without being connected with its publication. Compared to Herbert Krosney 19s The Lost Gospel, including its introduction by Prof. Bart Ehrman, Robinson goes into more detail about the questions that they only mention.

Robinson notes that nothing in the New Testament exonerates Judas even if some Gospel writers are harsher on him than others. Mark goes easiest on Judas, describing events in the sparest terms, so that when Jesus says that it would have been better for the one who turns him over to the authorities 1Cnot to have been born 1D (Mark 14:21) one can almost wonder if Mark 19s Jesus means to imply an added 1C 14unfortunately. 1D The vilification of Judas proceeds through an intermediate stage with Matthew saying that Judas did it for money. It is left to Luke and John, however, to attribute Judas 19s betrayal to Satanic intervention. But why, asks Robinson, did Jesus or the other disciples not recognize that Judas had been possessed by the Devil and cast the Devil out just as they are reported to have done with other demoniacs? Further, why did Jesus choose as an elite disciple (one of the twelve) someone he knew would betray him? On the other hand, how else did Jesus expect to be taken and killed in order to fulfill his mission if someone did not facilitate his arrest? Wasn 19t Judas 19s action necessary to fulfill the prophecy? The vilification process did not stop there, however, as Judas became a favorite figure of contempt for centuries of preachers, all too often intensifying the effect by using their diatribes against Judas as a jumping off point for anti-Semitism.

To this day, the popular meaning of Judas is 1Ctraitor, 1D and yet, attempts to rehabilitate Judas are perennial. Robinson quotes churchmen, contemporaries of the more influential vilifiers of Judas, who tried to hold out the possibility that if Judas truly repented in the afterlife he might yet be saved and go to heaven. From the twentieth century, Robinson cites at least three novels and at least two scholarly books that would rehabilitate Judas. Thus the idea of rehabilitating Judas might seem like a new idea, but it is not.

Would The Gospel of Judas contain a narrative or would it consist of a dialogue? Each of these styles are used in ancient books that have been called 1Cgospels. 1D Robinson guesses that it could be either or both. (It turns out to be a bit of both.) Part of the problem, he explains, is that the titles of ancient books were often made up by the scribes who copied them rather than by the authors. Few authors of so-called gospels meant for their works to fit into a genre called 1Cgospels. 1D After all, since the word 1Cgospel 1D 14in Greek 1Ceuaggelion 1D (compare the Spanish 1Cevangelio 1D) 14simply means 1Cgood news, 1D shouldn 19t every book in the entire New Testament be called a gospel?

Robinson begins his book with striking hostility: 1CThe Gospel of Judas 26. Has been kept under wraps until now, to maximize its financial gain for its Swiss owners. 1D It 19s publication by the National Geographic Society has been 1Ctimed for the greatest public impact, right at Easter. Those on the inside have been bought off (no doubt with considerably more than thirty pieces of silver), and sworn to silence on a stack of Bibles 14or on a stack of papyrus leaves. 1D

Obviously, Robinson is right that sensationalist marketing motivated setting Easter as the publication date, but it seems rash of Robinson to voice his impression that the owners are motivated ONLY by financial gain because this speaks to things that only they and God can know for certain, and the bit about people being bought off with more than thirty pieces of silver is particularly nasty, not least of all because Robinson will subsequently tell us that some of those 1Con the inside 1D are or have been his friends and respected colleagues. Does Robinson feel that they have betrayed him? Is he spiteful because he is jealous that they are on the inside of this business while he, a respected scholar of early Christianity, has been left to press his nose against the window? Showing how close he almost is to being included in the inner circle, Robinson relates that more than once, he emailed colleagues to ask what they knew about The Gospel of Judas only to be told 1Csorry 1D they had just signed confidentiality agreements with the owners of the Gospel and were no longer free to comment. Robinson recognizes that the chief translator, Rodolphe Kasser, as well as other scholars latterly brought on board to deal with the Gospel of Judas, are genuinely respectable scholars. This gives him hope that the Gospel will eventually be made available to all scholars without secrecy or prejudice 14an ideal for which Robinson has been a life-long champion.(His detractors might call him a self-proclaimed champion, but I think that a champion of an ideal is genuine if he practices what he teaches.)

Robinson 19s evaluation of the hoopla surrounding the Gospel seems more sober than Herbert Krosney 19s conceit that the publication of the Gospel of Judas could change Christianity or improve Jewish-Christian relations. Robinson quotes a Vatican official who patiently tells reporters that the Catholic Church has already been working on improving relations with Judaism. As to the new gospel 19s potential impact on Christianity, Robinson can almost be seen to roll his eyes over the sensational treatment in the press. Two reporters, he says, 1Cinterviewed me by phone from Zurich and London while preparing their articles, without my answers to their questions seeming to have much effect on what they wrote. 1D For example, he quotes one reporter 19s suggestion that The Gospel of Judas is as old as the four Gospels in the New Testament, which is hardly the case 14it is at least decades younger.

He shows the least respect for the non-scholars who owned The Gospel of Judas, whom he disdains, never having heard their names before they came up in connection with this ancient text; but perhaps he does not fully appreciate that, given the state of antiquities laws in many countries 14paradoxically almost requiring tomb-robbing to bring antiquities to light but then keeping them hidden from those who might know what they are, it was only the interest of the relatively sophisticated antiquities dealer Frieda Tchacos Nussberger that saved the Gospel of Judas from finally turning into a pile of worthless dust. Scholars like Robinson tried to rescue it before she came along, but they failed because they are too unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the grubby real world. 1CProps 1D should be given to each kind of professional where they are due. ( )

The 'Secrets of Judas' is of specialist interest to scholars who may be interested in the shady history of double dealing over a period of more than 20 years that eventually resulted in the publication of the Judas 'gospel'. Over the course of those dealings a substantial part of the fragile papyrus original has been lost. The book is of little interest to those readers who are interested in the content, meaning or significance of the Judas gospel. When Robinson does address the questions of meaning or significance, he does so with quite unexpected simple-mindedness, given his eminence as an authority. He concludes this early section of the book with a couple of questions and a reflection: 'So should we forgive Judas? Love our enemy? I do not think the efforts to argue that he did the right thing to do under the circumstances have proven their case. But I do think we can stop using him as a whipping boy, and seek a fairer, more forgiving relation to him'. This is flatulent stuff, explicable only as a self conscious attempt by Robinson to write down to his audience.

As others have pointed out, the title page and blurb mislead about the content of the book. Stylistically, it is repellent. Robinson writes with an irritating sense of his own self importance and a barely concealed resentment that he was excluded from the inner circle that eventually produced Judas gospel and its commentary. The limited value that of the book as a history of the complex negotiations that preceded publication is diminished by the absence of an index and bibliography. ( )

This work by a petulant scholar spends more than half the book going into gory, repetitive detail about the dirty dealings of the people who acquired and translated the Gospel of Judas (not him). The final two chapters actually deal with Judas, but it doesn't really add anything new to what I've read before, and his hypotheses are presented as fait accompli without evidence - he says it, you believe it. They are, in short, just so stories. Excessive in its redundancy and petulance, it is further marred by an extraordinary number of exclamation points. So many exclamations would feel out of place in a non-scholarly work; in a scholarly one, it is totally inappropriate to have several exclamation points per page. Definitely might want to look elsewhere for your enlightenment. ( )

Written prior to the National Geographic publication of the translated text of "The Gospel of Judas," this book outlines the questions still surrounding the mystery of Judas, and covers in exhaustive detail the acquisition and significance of this singular Coptic codex. It does not paint a rosy picture of the process during which significant deterioration took place. It also does not deal with the actual translated contents of the codex. It is nevertheless a valuable look at the discovery of yet another ancient document of very early Christian history. ( )

At the time of the publication of "The Secrets of Judas," the titular gospel had not yet been published. It was still held in "private archives," undergoing translation, scholarly study, and the fomenting of a massive hurricane of media spin. The main gripe I have about this book is that the it was written primarily--almost blatantly--to cash in upon the great public interest whipped up by the then-unreleased gospel. And therefore, there isn't that much actual substance to the book.

Don't get me wrong. I found much of the information interesting, but it lacked meat. Most of it could have been contained in a scholarly journal article, and, because the actual gospel text had not been made public, there was no commentary on the content of the Gospel of Judas, which when I purchased the book was what I was really interested in.

The book's content mainly concerns two things: how the manuscript came to be known to the modern world, and a dissection of the character of Judas based on previously known texts. It was all good information, interesting information, but it wasn't enough to justify a book on the subject. The real story was the discovery of a new biblical-era text, and that was missing from the work.

Maybe the reason I felt so dissatisfied was the fact that I went into it with different expectations. That's partly my fault, but some of the blame undoubtedly lies with the publisher, who billed this work as more than it really was. That's why I only gave the book two and a half stars. It didn't have all that much information in it, and the process of reading it left me feeling cheated. ( )