FUZZY THOUGHTS SLOPPILY ORGANIZED, POORLY WRITTEN:
READING JUDAS: THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS AND THE SHAPING OF CHRISTIANITY
BY ELAINE PAGELS AND KAREN KING


Even the title demonstrates the lack of a good editor for this book. It does not reflect what the book is about. The book does not delve into “the shaping of Christianity” except by way of some slight background about Irenaeus and his negative views of the Gospel of Judas that are set forth in Against Heresies. Similarly, Pagels and King promise much in their Introduction:

Much of the Gospel of Judas is filled with Jesus’s brilliant teaching about the spiritual life. Why, then, the author’s rage? What matters so deeply? And most important, what hope does the author offer to redeem his anger? The answers to these questions lead deep into the agonizing controversies and exultant visions of God that would ultimately come to shape Christianity and capture the hearts and souls of people for millennia to come. These are the matters we address in Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity.

p. xiii. But the only one of those questions they address is about the author’s supposed rage. Personally, I do not see the alleged rage in the text of the Gospel of Judas, but perhaps that is caused by my lack of knowledge of the ancient Coptic (originally Greek) and/or the then extant literary traditions. The question of “what matters so deeply” seems to be merely rhetorical filler on the part of Pagels and King. As to what they say is the most important question, about anger, one cannot help but ask why an individual is required to “redeem” his anger? Is anger a transgression of some sort? Pagels and King imply they will go deep into agonizing controversies; if they do, such depth is not in this book. Perhaps the depth is in the other books by the same authors that they cross-sell by footnote. Given the explicit discussion of the nature and origin of immortal “spirits” of some humans in the Gospel of Judas, perhaps it just muddies the waters to discuss the “hearts and souls” of people in this imprecise (are hearts different than souls?, is either immortal?) manner.

Even without a close examination of the text, the organization of the book is problematic—even on a physical level. King provides an English translation of the Gospel of Judas, with numbered references to endnotes that are set forth in the following section of the book, called “Comments on the Translation.” But then, there are endnotes to these endnotes! Thus, one is trying to mark three pages in the book simultaneously—the page where one is reading the text of the Gospel, the page referred to in the “Comments,” and the page referred to in the “Notes” section. A good editor should never have allowed endnotes to endnotes.

There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to which points receive endnotes and which do not. Their random nature suggests an undergraduate sticking in footnotes willy nilly in order to show his professor that he has done the requisite reading, rather than to clarify a point or to give credit where credit is due. For example, the notion that the “Ancient astronomers believed that mathematical descriptions of the universe prove that divine intelligence, not chance or necessity, pervades the universe…” (p. 153) rates an ancient quote and an endnote. But the proposition that there was an “ancient belief that doing certain acts helps to cultivate corresponding inner attitudes” (p. 127) is simply asserted with no authority. The lack of consistency shows that this work was merely cobbled together.

Even the chronology implied in this book is wrong. There is a discussion concerning Irenaeous and Tertullian and the way they extolled martyrdom; then Pagels and King state that what they “hear in the Gospel of Judas is a sharp, dissenting voice.” (p. 56). Yet it is almost certain that the Gospel of Judas came before the works of Irenaeous and Tertullian, and that Irenaeous was responding to the Gospel of Judas. (p. xii, and pp. 169-70, n.2). It is not logical to say that Judas was dissenting to opinions that had not yet been promulgated. Perhaps Pagles and King were merely using these three authors as exemplars of the many voices of early Christianity, but that is not how they are presented.

This supposedly scholarly book is larded with mushy (in two senses of the word) language:

…the pattern of ruling and serving is established as one that is not only good and natural but divine. The entire universe was ordered this way by God’s command—both the divine realm above and the world below. Ruling and order display God’s goodness.

(p.149). There is no mention of “God’s goodness” or any other goodness in the passage of the Gospel of Judas that this quote seeks to explicate. It is a mere logical leap from ruling and order to goodness. Is the goodness just presumed because it arises in the context of God? If so, then what has goodness to do with ruling and order? Is there goodness implied in the original Coptic text? If so, it was not set forth in King’s translation of the text. Most likely, King and/or Pagels just had a throw-away sentence that sounded “nice,” and just put it in—meaning be damned.

The authors make much of the mystical significance of the number twelve as represented by the number of Jesus's disciples and how their number reflects the twelve angels that were set by God to rule over the lower world. (p. 134). This may well be true-- but even as a casual reader of the Bible, I cannot help but think that the twelve disciples reflect the twelve sons of Jacob and the resulting twelve tribes of Israel. Given the prominence of those themes, it seems odd there is not even a mention of the Old Testament connection to the number twelve.

If you want an orderly account of the Gospel of Judas, then read The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot by Bart Ehrman, and skip the chaos of the Pagels/King book.

The book is laid out in three sections. The introduction by Elaine Pagels is sound enough, although not a major advance on themes this author has treated in more depth in other writings. The text of the gospel itself is fascinating, its fragmentary nature only enhancing the mystery and strangeness of what does survive. It chronicles the spiritual education of Judas, who, alone of the disciples, seems able to begin to fathom the mind-boggling nature of Jesus' teachings. The outcome of Judas' insight is the betrayal, which abruptly concludes the gospel. Karen King's notes are the final section: essential and models of clarity. I would recommend tackling this book in the following order: (1) first the gospel text itself -- just jump in, no matter how strange it might seem; (2) then the notes; (3) then the gospel again; (4) finally, the introduction. Or, the way it's actually presented in this volume is OK, too. ( )

A very well organized and thoughtful book. The authors discussed the Gospel, the Tchacos Codex it was part of, other "Gnostic" texts and early Christian writings, and books of the New Testament. They then present the Gospel in its entirety and after discuss each line or groups of lines as appropriate. There are also extensive footnotes.

It confirms the "conspiracy" of the early church fathers in eliminating anything that didn't promote their consolidation of power and dogma. As Pagels and King point out, it was necessary from their point of view for survival of their 'sect', but as a non-Christian who sees the harm done to the message of Jesus I can only be sorry that so many of the other gospels and Christian writings of the early years didn't make it into the "New Testament". They quote many of these documents - some I've heard of, some not, so I have some areas to research too.

I am sad that the Codex fared so badly after its initial discovery - there are so many missing lines and even parts of pages because of poor handling. Pagels and King have done a careful, insightful, emotive job in writing about The Gospel of Judas. ( )

The Gospel of Judas, known previously only through the refutation of Irenaeus, is a quite recent discovery, only becoming public last year. In a theme worthy of Borges, it presents the arch-traitor Judas as the most beloved of Christ's disciples - the only one who understands Jesus' true mission and the transcendent reality of the kingdom of God.

Judas has always presented a problem for the Church. It is through his agency that Christ is betrayed and crucified, necessary steps towards the redeeming event of the resurrection. Yet Judas is reviled as being possessed by Satan himself, an agent of pure evil. More recently, Judas has been posited as a proto-Zionist, knife at the ready, who betrays Jesus as soon as he realizes that he has not come as a messianic king to defeat the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel.

Pagels and King see the Judas in this text as a mouthpiece for criticism of the cult of martyrdom, the thirst for the opportunity to "die in glory for the Lord" so prevalent in the early church. There is also a certain amount of mystical theology thrown in as well (the "Gnostic" idea that Jesus is an emissary of the true God, who reigns above the demiurge responsible for the creation of the physical universe). The text contained in this volume and the interpretations provided by Pagels and King are a worthy addition to the expanding literature of the early Christian era.

Not so much a book as an extended essay, this short work has some interesting things to say about this newly restored Gospel.

Chiefly, Pagels and King see this gospel as a response to the support of martyrdom that the early church fathers gave. Repeatedly, they refer to the thinly veiled "anger" of the author at the suggestion that somehow being tortured and killed was the best way to get closer to God.

The gospel itself, translated and annotated here, is strange and different. There are some angels and celestial beings that play an active role, and all of this reality seems to be handled by their caprice, as some sort of flawed proxy of the ultimate creator. Very strange indeed. I hadn't met that cast of characters before, or that particular vision of Christian cosmology.

Interesting, scholarly...without a whiff of any of the sensationalism that has accompanied this text since its reintroduction into the light after 1500 or so years. ( )