The Gospel of Judas

Last night, my friend Sherry (one of the sharpest people I’ve ever met – I’ve never known anyone so well read) sent me a link to an article entitled “Betrayal” – subtitled, “Should we hate Judas Iscariot?” –published in the August 3, 2009 edition of The New Yorker. The article was written by Joan Acocella, the well-known dance (and occasional cultural) critic for The New York Times.

Acocella writes about efforts over the last few years to “rehabilitate” the image of Judas Iscariot, following the discovery in the late seventies and the restoration (from 2001-2006) of The Gospel of Judas, constituting one part of a codex supposedly dating back to the third or fourth century.

Her discussion about Judas, his betrayal of Christ, the cultural significance of his identity as a Jew are all very interesting, but not as interesting as her discussion of the role scholars and theologians, as well as believers, take in shaping our understanding of religious texts.

“In the twentieth century,” writes Acocella, “Bible scholars repeatedly had to deal with ancient books – the Dead Sea scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library – that surfaced from the sands of the Middle East to wreak havoc with orthodoxy.”

She goes on to ask why The Gospel of Judas (which, though I’ve not read it, is described as bizarre) would matter to modern Christians. Here’s her answer:

“Many American religious thinkers are more liberal than their churches. They wish that Christianity were more open – not a stone wall of doctrine. To these people, the Gospel of Judas was a gift. As with other Gnostic gospels, its mere existence showed that there was no such thing as a fixed doctrine, or that there wasn’t at the beginning.” (emphasis added)

So where does the doctrine really come from, if not from God? Who decides what Christians should believe? And how can we be certain that what we know of the lives represented in the Bible are the whole truth? If they are true in any respect at all?

I find it so difficult to believe in the divine origin or backbone of the Bible every time a new text such as The Gospel of Judas is discovered. So much of what we are led to believe is revealed truth seems more and more likely pieced together, or carefully selected and excised, by some unknown person or persons from the past, from a strange collection of ancient folk tales that are missing crucial cultural context.

Yet even today, there are those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I suppose it’s easier to believe than question. Faith certainly offers more comfort than uncertainty. At least to some people.

Wouldn’t it be more humane to look for the truth and to surrender flawed, ancient texts that do nothing but encourage discord? There must be a better way.