
Okay I am going to be immodest, before Fr. Imbelli posted on this article over on
dotCommonweal, I wrote this on Saturday, but left it on a computer with no internet connectivity. On Saturday's
New York Times OpEd page April DeConick, a professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University in Houston, Texas, in an article entitled
Gospel Truth, blows the lid on the National Geographic’s much bally-hooed translation of what is readily admitted to be the third century text of
The Gospel of Judas. Gnostic silliness has long captured the front pages of national newspapers and magazines. Every year as Lent comes to a close and Holy Week beckons us to Easter,
Time,
Newsweek,
U.S. News & World Report, or another widely read publication recycles the opinions of, among others, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, and/or Marcus Borg. All of these are scholars whose opinions have long ceased to matter among their fellow scholars, which is what causes them to pander to the popular reader. Their highly imaginative reconstructions, based on little or no evidence, are about as true as Dan Brown’s imaginative reconstructions of Christian history in his various books,
The Da Vinci Code only being the best known. The re-discovery of the ancient transcript of
The Gospel of Judas, which had been locked away in a vault in Switzerland, provided a great occasion for many, like Pagels, whose book, written with Karen King,
Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, was another opportunity to squander what little credibility they may have had. As expected, the most reasonable and scholarly response to
The Gospel of Judas, published shortly after the National Geographic Society’s translation was made public, right around Easter 2006, was by the appropriately named New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, who is Anglican bishop of Durham, England. His little book,
Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity?, is a must read for anybody concerned about these matters.
Before returning to Prof. DeConick’s opinion piece it bears pointing out that there is no dispute that
The Gospel of Judas is a third century text, which means it was written in the 200s CE. That is at least one hundred years after the last written manuscripts that comprise our New Testament,
The Gospel of St. John, along with
The Apocalypse of St. John, known more popularly as
Revelations, along with the rest of the Johannine corpus (i.e., 1,2.3 John) being the latest New Testament documents. There are ancient Christian manuscripts that are contemporaneous with the canonical books of scripture that are not included in our canon, namely
The Didache and
The Shepherd of Hermes. These books, while not scriptural, very well could be. But manuscripts that date as late as
The Gospel of Judas, or
The Gospel of Thomas, and are from places other than the Holy Land, do not even present the possibility of being accepted as apostolic.
Prof. DeConick’s article is based on her recent re-translation of
The Gospel of Judas from the Coptic manuscript. In comparing her translation with the one so aggressively pedaled by the National Geographic Society, she notices some problems, to put it mildly, with the National Geographic translation. Unsurprisingly, these problems revolve around what appears to be an effort to lend credibility to the alternative history of Christianity as imagined by many, among whom Elaine Pagels is the best known. What is perhaps most ironic is that for all the abuse heaped upon the efforts to preserve and transcribe the badly damaged and fragmentary Dead Sea scrolls, the National Geographic Society, according to Prof. DeConick, in its treatment of the transcript of the manuscript of
The Gospel of Judas, completely ignored The Society of Biblical Literature’s 1991 injunction
“holding that, if the condition of the written manuscript requires that access be restricted, a facsimile reproduction should be the first order of business. It’s a shame that National Geographic, and its group of scholars, did not follow this sensible injunction”. I think in light of DeConick’s re-translation, we have a clue as to why a translatable manuscript was not made available sooner.