The “Gospel of Judas” was a sham
July 16th, 2008 | By Rich Shipe | Posted in Blog, From Rich, Resources
May 2006
Back in 2006 the National Geographic Society helped sponsor a highly promoted research project into what was being called the “Gospel of Judas.” This ancient manuscript was implied by some to have been written by Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus and who soon after committed suicide according to the Bible’s account. National Geographic referred to this lost “gospel” in this way:
The Gospel of Judas gives a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, offering new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Unlike the accounts in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a reviled traitor, this newly discovered Gospel portrays Judas as acting at Jesus’ request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities.
The National Geographic Society implies that the Bible is wrong or at best unreliable. If Judas didn’t kill himself and didn’t betray Jesus then how can we trust the rest of the account? Can we believe that our Bible is authentic? If all these scholarly experts are certain, how can I be certain? Follow the link to read the rest of this post.
National Geographic dedicated significant resources (rumored at low seven figures) and promotion to this project which included in their words an international team of preeminent scholars and scientists who worked to preserve and translate this ancient text. Their promotion included the May 2006 cover story, a 90-minute (without commercials) TV special, and a full website dedicated to the project.
Besides a number of significant problems that were raised at the time of publishing, now The National Geographic Society and the scholars involved are being accused of scholarly malpractice.
The venerable Chronicle of Higher Education recently published an article on the “Gospel of Judas” project titled “The Betrayal of Judas: Did a ‘dream team’ of biblical scholars mislead millions?” Here is a key excerpt (h/t Dr. Veith) but I recommend reading the whole article:
One of the seven million people who watched the National Geographic documentary was April D. DeConick. Admittedly, DeConick, a professor of biblical studies at Rice University, was not your average viewer. As a Coptologist, she had long been aware of the existence of the Gospel of Judas and was friends with several of those who had worked on the so-called dream team. It’s fair to say she watched the documentary with special interest.
As soon as the show ended, she went to her computer and downloaded the English translation from the National Geographic Web site. Almost immediately she began to have concerns. From her reading, even in translation, it seemed obvious that Judas was not turning in Jesus as a friendly gesture, but rather sacrificing him to a demon god named Saklas. This alone would suggest, strongly, that Judas was not acting with Jesus’ best interests in mind - which would undercut the thesis of the National Geographic team. She turned to her husband, Wade, and said: “Oh no. Something is really wrong.”
She started the next day on her own translation of the Coptic transcription, also posted on the National Geographic Web site. That’s when she came across what she considered a major, almost unbelievable error. It had to do with the translation of the word “daimon,” which Jesus uses to address Judas. The National Geographic team translates this as “spirit,” an unusual choice and inconsistent with translations of other early Christian texts, where it is usually rendered as “demon.” In this passage, however, Jesus’ calling Judas a demon would completely alter the meaning. “O 13th spirit, why do you try so hard?” becomes “O 13th demon, why do you try so hard?” A gentle inquiry turns into a vicious rebuke.
Then there’s the number 13. The Gospel of Judas is thought to have been written by a sect of Gnostics known as Sethians, for whom the number 13 would indicate a realm ruled by the demon Ialdabaoth. Calling someone a demon from the 13th realm would not be a compliment. In another passage, the National Geographic translation says that Judas “would ascend to the holy generation.” But DeConick says it’s clear from the transcription that a negative has been left out and that Judas will not ascend to the holy generation (this error has been corrected in the second edition). DeConick also objected to a phrase that says Judas has been “set apart for the holy generation.” She argues it should be translated “set apart from the holy generation” - again, the opposite meaning. In the later critical edition, the National Geographic translators offer both as legitimate possibilities.
These discoveries filled her with dread. “I was like, this is bad, and these are my friends,” she says. It’s worth noting that it didn’t take DeConick months of painstaking research to reach her conclusions. Within minutes, she thought something was wrong. Within a day, she was convinced that significant mistakes had been made. Why, if it was so obvious to her, had these other scholars missed it? Why had they seen a good Judas where, according to DeConick, none exists?
How is that not intellectual dishonesty? Christians are constantly accused of being intellectually dishonest and believing in fantastical myths rather than hard evidence. Christian scholarship and the authenticity of scripture has stood the test of time and constant attack for the last 2000 years. It is incredible to me that even within 200 years of Christ, people were publishing works like the Gospel of Judas in order to discredit God’s word. Even today the powerful National Geographic Society attempts to do the same, yet God’s Word and His Gospel still stands! That fact is evidence pointing toward the Bible as being truly “God breathed.”
If you’d like more information on the “Gospel of Judas” see this article:
An Introduction and Orientation to the “Gospel” of Judas by Jeffrey Volkmer Th.M.
And if you are looking do more research on the authenticity of scripture here is a great place to start:
Introduction to Bibliology
