Jimmy Akin

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.

GET THE STORY.

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).

John Allen (yes, I know this is kinda turning on to John Allen week, but he’s a good source and I’m doing a bunch of pre-blogging since I’m going to have to be offline for a few days and I don’t want to just leave the blog inactive) has an interesting interview with the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Francis Rooney (pictured).

EXCERPTS:

In the struggle against terrorism, most people are on board in terms of ends. The debate is over means. Have there been exchanges between you and the Holy See on that question?
Obviously, everybody hopes there won’t be any more wars. Like I said, the Holy See is supportive of our nation-building efforts in Iraq, and hopes that the seed of some kind of pluralistic, tolerant society, if possible, will be an example to other countries in that area.

Has there been any additional conversation between you and the Holy See about when the use of force is justified to try to curb terrorism?
No. The subject hasn’t come up. I haven’t seen any particular reason to raise that at this point. When we talk about Iran, the Holy See has been clearly supportive of all the nations working to avoid a nuclear armed Iran. There’s really nothing to talk about at this point. I think we all agree that a war in Iran would be a horrible thing. The fortunate thing is, the Holy See is willing to speak up about the right of Israel to exist. The Holy Father opposed President Ahmadinejad’s comments. We’ve encouraged them to be strong, to continue to speak up, because that shows Iran the whole world is united against them having nuclear weapons and threatening their neighbors.

You haven’t heard anything from the Holy See to the effect of, ‘Please don’t use force in Iran?’
No.

You mentioned religious liberty, another core theme of interest to the Holy See, especially these days in the context of the Islamic world. Benedict XVI seems a bit more outspoken on Islam than John Paul II. Some welcome that, others worry that it will heighten tensions. What’s your reading?
I think the evolving consensus that the church needs to be clear and strong that religious freedom is a two-way street is unimpeachable. I haven’t heard anything from my government to oppose that. We’re for religious freedom of all stripes. When you apply that principle, you have to say that for Saudi Arabia to say, ‘There can’t be any churches,’ is an issue. I believe even Secretary Rice is starting to address that, and I think the President’s comments that pluralism in Iraq should germinate pluralism elsewhere, is all playing into that same thing. You can’t have it two ways.

You would agree that there’s a stronger line under Benedict XVI?
Absolutely. I think they’ve hardened up. I think they’ve gotten clearer. They’re focusing on this reciprocity doctrine. They’re also focusing on the possibilities of working together in non-doctrinal areas, which I think is smart. It’s kind of hard for people to hate each other who have worked together building a Habitat for Humanity house, that kind of team-building concept, which can be applied in pastoral care, in AIDS relief. There are also the life issues, where the Catholic Church has been on the same side with Islam before the U.N. Maybe there are some things like that they can work on together. I think that’s part of their thinking, and that’s all great.

I thought the interview overall was quite interesting and insightful. I’m not happy about everything I read–partly because Ambassador Rooney puts a political spin on a few points, which is what you’d expect from a political appointee–but it’s well worth reading.

GET THE STORY.