[See Part I and Part II in this series]
Well, I'm through the whole book, so it's time to blog about chapters 9-11. Recall these chapter titles:
- Who Was Judas Iscariot?
- What Did Judas Betray and Why Did He Betray It?
- The Gospel of Judas in Perspective
I've got to say, I'm a bit Bart-ed out. As he rolled to his conclusion, the battle-of-the-competing-orthodoxies vibe became more and more prominent. This is enough for me to commit, here and now, to say that I will not read any more of Bart's "popular" books. If he pops out some editions of gnostic texts in their original and translation, with or without commentary, I may jump on those. But the whole "victorious orthodox party" schtick is tired, old and has begun to grate on me. For perhaps the prime example of the last chapter of the book, consider this sub-section-ending paragraph on p. 179:
Is it just a coincidence that none of the noncanonical writings discovered over the course of the past century embody an orthodox perspective? If orthodoxy was so widespread, why is it that only heterodox documents of the second century have been discovered? The answer to this question leads me to consider why, after all, the Gospel of Judas should be seen as so important. (Ehrman, 179)
Where to start?
First ... uh ... well, we have this thing called the "New Testament" that Erhman would classsify as "orthodox" ... and we've had it for almost 2000 years. I don't think we're going to magically discover new canonical gospels seeing as how the canon is closed.
Second ... well ... we have these writings from guys called "church fathers" and the dudes they dialogued with in their writings. Some are orthodox, some are heretics, and some walk the line (that's right, a Johnny Cash reference in a post on Bart Ehrman!). We've had these for hundreds of years.
Third ... er, wasn't the Didache discovered in the mid-to-late 1800's? And wouldn't that be considered to be, for the most part, "orthodox"?
In other words, the orthodox stuff from that time frame (and before) is well-known and has been for centuries. Is Ehrman really saying that because no "orthodox documents" dating to the second century have been discovered in the past 100 years (so, pre-1906?) that therefore, QED, "heterodox Christians" must've been in the majority? I can't think so, but that seems to be the force of his argument here.
If we're measuring on mass of documents discovered alone — and not just documents located in the past 100 years — then we have scads of orthodox (and heretical/'heterodox') stuff from the NT canon, to the writings of the Church Fathers on down. (On that count, shouldn't Ehrman subscribe to the priority of the Byzantine text if numbers are the important thing?)
Anyway, I'm babbling. I was unsatisfied with Ehrman's conclusion. Because we really don't know much about Judas apart from that he "betrayed" Jesus (for a sum) and then either commited suicide or died horribly, Ehrman ends up spending much of his conclusion providing his view of Jesus — that Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher — so he can then posit that because that's what and how Jesus taught, that's what Judas must've subscribed to wholeheartedly. After all, Judas was one of the twelve. So then Ehrman discusses why someone with the sorts of beliefs he ascribes to Judas could possibly have betrayed his itinerant apocalyptic Jesus. Ehrman thinks that Jesus taught one thing publicly (son of man will arrive in judgement) and another thing privately to his disciples (Jesus will be the 'King of the Jews'). What Judas betrayed was that Jesus really did claim to be 'King of the Jews' and therefore provided the necessary evidence for the trial.
I see a few problems with this.
Following Ehrman's logic, then, all twelve of the inner-circle disciples would've believed that same stuff to the degree Judas did. But only Judas betrayed. Why? Why did the others stick it out if they were ultimately looking for the same thing Judas was?
While Judas was in the circle of the twelve, he wasn't routinely (to our knowledge) included in the sub-group of Peter/James/John. So there were likely some disciples closer to Jesus. If Jesus was what Bart says, why wouldn't others (e.g. Peter/James/John) more acutely come to the conclusions that Judas apparently did?
Also, people following Jesus wanted to make him king, and that relatively early on in his ministry. We see this in John 6.14-15:
When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. (Jn 6:14-15, ESV, emphasis added. See also Jn 12.12-15)
So the Jesus-as-King vibe is known (or at least desired) outside of the group of twelve. And Jesus didn't want to be king. At least, not a king like the people in John 6 wanted him to be.
I don't have a worked-out alternate view of why Judas did what he did. But Ehrman's view reads just as much into the person of Judas and his motives as any other view does (particularly traditional views). Ehrman relies on his reconstruction of Jesus, then reads a sort of proto-disciple out of that view and applies those attributes/motives to Judas, attempting to make sense out of the gospel texts and his reconstruction. Given his reconstruction, he goes the only places he can.
After examining the "historical Judas", Ehrman then goes into why Gospel of Judas is so spectacular (the last chapter). But he wants to do it responsibly:
How do we put a discovery like this in perspective? We should recognize the Gospel of Judas as the spectacular find it is, without sensationalizing it into something that it is not. (Ehrman, 172).
Sure, I can agree with that. The problem is where it goes next:
The Gospel does matter, a lot. Not because it gives us more reliable information about what happened in the life of Jesus, but because it gives us more reliable information about what was happening in the lives of his followers in the decades after his death. For understanding the early history of Christianity, the Gospel of Judas is tremendously important. It is safe to say that it is the most significant Christian text to appear in the past sixty years. (Ehrman, 173, emphasis added).
My problem with this statement is that he's classifying Gospel of Judas as a "Christian" text. It's a gnostic text, and — apart from the false dialogues between Judas and Jesus — a fairly standard one at that.
The use of "60 years" is a bit specious. Nag Hammadi documents were discovered in 1945 ... just outside that spectacular 60 year window. I'm guessing that Bart would say Nag Hammidi gnostic documents were "Christian" too, hence the 60-year window.
Lastly, note that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1948. So Dead Sea Scrolls have no impact on Christianity but Gospel of Judas does? I'm lost.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. I need to get home (I'm writing this at the office) and think about dinner. The bottom line is: I don't think Gospel of Judas has much if anything to say about early Christianity. I'd say it has something to say about Sethian Gnosticism and it's co-opting of New Testament personae, and that we have (rather) early evidence of this now. But Christianity? Nope.
And so ends my rolling series on Ehrman's Gospel of Judas book. If you've read this far, thanks for doing so, and apologies for the scatteredness. I should end and once again say that there was good stuff in the book, but the use of it as a platform for all this other stuff, as well as the conclusions about the value of the Gospel of Judas* made it a trial for me to read.
* What, a book about Judas and the Gospel of Judas finds that the Gospel of Judas is a spectactular find, the most important "Christian" document in 60 years? Hmmmmmm, why is that a surprise. I'd guess that a book on that topic, written like this one is, would have to come to that conclusion, no?