John Allen (last John Allen-based piece this week, I promise) has an interesting interview with the rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Fr. Stephen Pisano.
The occasion of the interview is the release of the Gospel of Judas (with which Fr. Pisano isn’t as familiar as one might like) but it ranges considerably beyond that and includes a discussion of B16 and Scripture as well.
Ironically, I thought one of the most insightful things in the interview was actually a statement by Allen (in blue, below) which I thought captures something in a particularly crisp way.
EXCERPTS:
Hearing about these rival gospels, the average person may think, ‘My Gosh, the gospels [in the Bible] had it wrong.’ How should we understand claims like that?
They’re simply not true. That’s the short answer. These other Gnostic gospels haven’t really changed our view of things, and one more isn’t going to do that either. This is literature that came from a particular sect, a particular group, which followed this Gnostic philosophy. One of the things that is important to see, I think, is that we’re in the second century. This is really a very short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this period of the early church, Christian theology as we know it today was really in its infancy. We shouldn’t have the idea that already in the second century we had something developed like the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s something that is the result of thousands of years of theological reflection. If we try to put ourselves back into the mentality of the second century, the early believers didn’t really know yet what to believe, what context to put their belief in, and I think there were a lot of attempts to express the faith and to find a philosophy that fit in with the resurrection faith. Some of these attempts bore fruit and became part of mainstream Christian theology, and some were dead ends. This is one that was a dead end. The proof of that, or the indication of it at least, is that you have Irenaeus writing around the year 180, and already then he is condemning this very approach to Christian theology. If it was condemned and seen as deviant already in the second century, I don’t think it’s something that is going to come back and be seen as relevant today.Would it be fair to say that the ‘Gospel of Judas’ gives us new insight into second century Christianity, and the varieties of theological reflection that were going on, as opposed to any new insight into the historical Jesus or the historical Judas?
Very much so, certainly it would be the former. One of the things that is really a big lacuna is our knowledge of the second century. We do have these Gnostic gospels and some other writings from around that time, but really we don’t have all that much that tells us about the second century, so anything that comes to light pertaining to that period is all to the good from the point of view of our historical knowledge. It’s very helpful.Bottom line: No one’s faith should feel threatened by the ‘Gospel of Judas’?
No, by no means.The church’s traditional teaching that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was a sinful act is not going to be challenged by this discovery?
I don’t think so. One interesting question, though, is whether Judas had full knowledge of what he was doing when he betrayed Jesus. From what we can gather from the gospel accounts, he had full knowledge that he was betraying Jesus. But did he have full knowledge that he was betraying the Son of God? That’s more difficult to say. If you look at the way all the apostles are portrayed in the gospels, during the earthly life of Jesus, they appear not to get it. They ran hot and cold … how they saw Jesus, and what they believed Jesus to be during his earthly life with them, is very difficult to discern. After the experience of the risen Lord, whatever that experience was, and after Pentecost, then the apostles seemed to be begin to really understand what was going on. We have to understand that the gospels themselves were written in light of that experience of the resurrected Jesus and the experience of the Spirit at Pentecost. So, did Judas know he was betraying the Son of God? I don’t know that we could say that. … Whether he saw Jesus basically as a political leader, a subversive leader who was going to lead the Jewish people against the Roman yoke, and then realized that wasn’t Jesus’ intention, is hard to say. We don’t really know what he thought about things.But we do know he betrayed somebody for money, so that at least on the basis of the canonical gospels, it’s hard to make a hero out of him.
That’s right, yes, indeed.[O]ne of the ways in which the Judas story has fueled anti-Jewish prejudice over the years is that he was the original traitor, and some feel that if you can rehabilitate Judas, you would reduce Christian anti-Semitism.
There is an extended debate about the responsibility, or the culpability, of the Jewish people in the death of the Jesus. I think that two things have to be noted there. One is simply a fact from the early expressions of faith, in both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, that in both of these texts it says Jesus suffered ‘under Pontius Pilate,’ and there’s no reference to the Jews at all. From a broader theological point of view, which has always been, I think, the point of view of Christian theology and Christian faith, the ultimate answer to the question, ‘Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?’ is, ‘Every person who is a sinner.’ No matter what their particular religious affiliation is, Jesus came to free all people from sin. One can say that the cause of Jesus’ death is really the sinfulness of the human race.In other words, attempts to rehabilitate Judas are not going to have any particular impact?
I don’t think so, no. That’s in addition to it being an impossible task.
Aside from Allen’s line that I put in blue, one of the things that I found interesting about this was the idea that some people have of rehabilitating Judas as a way of combatting anti-Semitism. That may play a role in explaining the attempts to rehabilitate Judas in the 20th century. In a surprising number of books and films–both fiction and non-fiction–people tried sympathetic portrayals of Judas (see, e.g., Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth). Perhaps the desire to combat anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust played a role in the sudden rash of pro-Judas sentiments in the media (alongside a general 20th century desire to be perverse).
It seems strange to me that people would think rehabilitating Judas would combat anti-Semitism. Caiaphas and the other priests at the time and the crowd, sure, I understand why people would want to let them off the hook. But who would hate the Jews because of Judas?
I suppose though that if the betrayal by Judas were presented as a good thing then the implication would be that the handing over of Jesus to Pilate by Caiaphas and the demand that he be crucified would be good things to. Thus the Jews would be “off the hook” because we Christians from our horrible anti-Semitic gospels blame the Jews for killing Jesus, don’t you know.
On the other hand you can hardly blame the Jews themselves for the attitude they often take, towards things like the movie Passion of the Christ for instance. They often percieve that it’s a bad idea to attack the NT itself, so they attack things like that movie.
However, the history of how that dark area in Jewish history, and it’s recording in the gospels, has been misused to foster hatred makes their position understandable.
I compare it to the Spanish Inquisition. A most terrible episode in Catholic history. On the other hand, it was not as bad, especially for the time, as many people have made it out to be. Also it was the actions of a segment of the Catholic leadership, not the whole Church. Nor is it fair to blame modern Catholics for the sins of the past. It has been conveniently exploited though by all kinds of people who want to attack and discredit the Catholic Church. Who among us Catholics not be suspicious of any movie that came out of Hollywood about the Spanish Inquisition, no matter how much the director insisted it was not at all anti-Catholic? Similarly, would many of us not be quick to jump on something that seemed to excuse the Spanish Inquisition? We might not be right in doing either, but it would make sense.
Of course most of those who are promoting this Gospel of Judas nonsense are not Jewish, but they are anti-Christian. I can see in how a well-meaning effort to help the Jewish people they would try to bring down or change Christianity, since they have often bought into the idea that there is something inherently anti-Semitic in the traditional account of the crucifixion. Again, this is wrong, but understandable.
All this Gospel of Judas stuff, as well as the DVC remind me of what passed for “deep thinking” among a lot of my college peers (and probably myself, often enough).
It’s the tendency to turn a well-known idea on its head (or inside out) and then talk as if this could be TRUE. It’s a constant “what if” frame of mind.
Judas is known as a traitor, but WHAT IF Judas’ betrayal actually made him the TRUEST of Jesus’ disciples? A-A-A-a-a-h-h-h…
The Cold War was a titanic struggle between the two Super Powers, with the total destruction of the world hanging in the balance. But WHAT IF the U.S. and the Soviets were actually allies the whole time, and the whole scheme was cooked up so they could expand their power and influence? What if all those thousands of nukes we have always been afraid of never really existed?
O-o-o-o-o-o-h…
Modern vaccines have helped prevent disease and saved countless lives. But WHAT IF vaccines are actually a government plot, and are really designed to make people SICK? Allergies and ADD are just side effects of vaccinations develped to keep us docile and seated in front of our TVs (and WHAT IF those are actually mind-control devices?).
What if Jesus had been married and had descendents?…
What if we never went to the moon?…
It’s easier than actually thinking, and gets even easier the more beers you have.
I just now made up the Cold War thing, as well as the vaccine plot, but I’m SURE someone, somewhere already passionately advocates both ideas.
Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure TVs really ARE mind control devices…
Q: Bottom line: No one’s faith should feel threatened by the ‘Gospel of Judas’?
A: To suggest that is to say that the Church can “infallibly” teach error or that Jesus was lying when He promised to be with the Church until He returned — or that God simply isn’t God.
Please tell me that John Allen was asking that question as a proxy for unbelievers and not because he could have had some doubt on the topic.
(Actually, I’m new here… who is this John Allen to whom reference is being made?)
“Please tell me that John Allen was asking that question as a proxy for unbelievers and not because he could have had some doubt on the topic.”
He’s just asking that question to counteract the general perception put out by the mainstream media that the Gospel of Judas should somehow be a seen as a threat to people’s faith. I doubt very seriously that John Allen actually would believe that it is.
I’m more persuaded to believe that the rehabilitation of Judas has more to do with easing people’s own consciences concerning themselves society’s betrayal of Christ today then easing anti-Semitism of the past.
I remember reading somewhere that in Medieval Passion Plays Judas’s appearence on stage often fed off of anti-Semitic stereotypes (the character of Caiphas being another instance of this). So historically, there is some connection between Christian representations of Judas and anti-Semitism.
Tim J.,
I have honestly heard both your Cold War Conspiracy scenario and your Vaccine-Mind Control scenario seriously argued by people of my acquantance, most of them VERY well-educated.
It seems to me that some people’s minds are in fact so open that their brains have fallen out.
Tim J.,
I have honestly heard both your Cold War Conspiracy scenario and your Vaccine-Mind Control scenario seriously argued by people of my acquantance, most of them VERY well-educated.
It seems to me that some people’s minds are in fact so open that their brains have fallen out.
Easy to say on a Friday, Jimmy.
Have a good weekend. 🙂
The irony of that claim — the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic. Gnosticism explictly teaches that the Creator God of the Old Testament is not the True God but an evil emanation of the True God. You can tell he’s evil because he creates matter and then says it’s good.
The God of the New Testament came to save us from this evil Old Testament Jewish God.
I don’t think that would help anti-Semitism.
Judas was a Jews & he betrayed Jesus. But the Blessed Mother is a Jew too. As is the beloved Disciple who followed Jesus to the cross.
I don’t understand anti-Semites. The logic here is irrefutable.
As for sypathetic portrayals of Judas. Well I believe they stem more from the horror of thinking Judas really was damned for his actions. Nobody wants to confront the possibility of Hell. Especially regarding someone who literally was so close to God Incarnate on Earth.
Sure, Tim, make fun of the Cold War Scenario and the Vaccine Mind Control Scenario. Next, you’ll be trying to convince us that a duplicate key to the wardroom ice box didn’t exist!
bill912,
I would never attempt to refute the existence of a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox.
It has been proven beyond a doubt, with geometric logic.
Anti-semitic thoughts make no sense as the true Lamb of God, the ultimate and complete sacrifice for all, had to be made under the authority of Caiaphas, the High Priest. Thus Caiaphas had to condemn Jesus to death.
As the Creed does state, He did suffer under Pontius Pilate, but that was considering only the political aspect of the authority.
In order to pay for our sins, Jesus had to suffer under the spiritual authority held by the High Priest in order to pay for the sins of everyone.
tinman.
Jesus Christ is the High Priest. It is under His own spiritual authority that he was sacrificed. The Levitical priesthood, like other pre-Christian priesthoods, prefigured the true efficacious priesthood of Christ. It was not Caiaphas who sacrificed Jesus, it was Jesus himself, the True Priest and Lamb of God. Another side of the reality is that he was betrayed and said to Pilate “he who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” In one sense, really the highest sense, it was we who handed over Christ by our sins to be put to death. In another sense it was Caiaphas, who commited a terrible sin by doing so.
I therefore do not see where the rational for your assertion comes from. Of course anti-semitism is uncalled for, but I don’t see how restoring the reputation of Caiaphas is any more relevant than restoring the reputation of Judas.
Perhaps you could tell me what source your assertion comes from?