Theologians: 'Gospel of Judas' Authentic but Not Authoritative
One factor that proponents and opponents of the ancient text seemingly agree upon is its authenticity, although Christian theologians argue that authenticity does not imply accuracy.
Debates continue to rage regarding the controversial ‘‘Gospel of Judas’’ on issues such as its teachings which oppose the canonical Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus and Judas. However, one factor that proponents and opponents of the ancient text seemingly agree upon is its authenticity, although Christian theologians argue that authenticity does not imply accuracy.
Leading Christian theologians, such as the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, have called the document “sound and responsible,” noting that the codex manuscript underwent “the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions.” Yet despite consensus on the text’s authenticity, opponents contend that the “Gospel of Judas” does not accurately portray Jesus, Judas, and the role of Jesus as Messiah and Savior of humanity.
“Sure it’s authentic, meaning it came from that time,” said Ray Van Neste, associate professor of Christian studies at Union University in a report released by the university on Apr. 10. “That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the true gospel.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Biola University’s professor of New Testament Language and Literature and chair of the New Testament department, Dr. Clinton T. Arnold, explained in more detail what it means when experts say the text is authentic.
“They only mean that the document is not a recent forgery. In other words, they wanted to prove that some profit-seeking individual did not fake the whole thing in a garage laboratory 20 years ago,” explained Arnold. “The radio carbon test, the handwriting analysis, and the similarity to the Nag Hammadi documents all suggest that it was written in the late third or early fourth century.”
“I have no reason to doubt these conclusions,” he added. “On the other hand, the National Geographic Society was not saying that the historical or theological statements of the document were accurate and correct.”
Union’s Van Neste also agreed that the text is authentic but that authenticity does not necessary lead to accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus.
The Christian Studies professor used the example of writings during World War II that denied the Holocaust as an example of authentic historical pieces – written during that time – but that were “far from accurate or authoritative.” He further said that the discovery of the “Gospel of Judas” should not change people’s belief in traditional Christian teachings because many documents similar to the “Gospel of Judas” have been discovered before.
“Numerous papyrus documents of many kinds have been discovered in the past 100 years, including over 100 papyrus fragments of the New Testament, which, incidentally match up precisely with the New Testament text as we already have it,” said Biola’s New Testament chair in support of the idea that the discovery of the “Gospel of Judas” should not be shocking.
“About 60 years ago, a large number of papyrus documents very similar in character to the Gospel of Judas were discovered near the upper Nile River in Egypt at a village called Nag Hammadi.”
“The Nag Hammadi manuscripts contained nearly 50 different documents that included a number of ‘secret’ gospels,” continued Arnold. “These included titles such as, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary, as well as a number of other texts purporting to give special truth and insights into God, spiritual realities, and secret knowledge.”
“Although each of these documents was called a ‘gospel,’ they are very different from the four canonical gospels. They do not contain accounts of Jesus’ earthly ministry, his passion, and his resurrection. They tend to be discourses on secret knowledge.”
According to David S. Dockery, the president of Union University, the “Gospel of Judas” completely ignores the gospel message itself, which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
“I would say that this document is ‘true’ only insofar as it reflects what Gnostics taught in the third century A.D. That is its principal value,” concluded Arnold, the New Testament Language and Literature expert. “It gives us an important historical window on one form of religious belief in the late Roman period. There is really nothing in it that fits with the life of Jesus as we know it.”
