The “Gospel” of Judas Changes Nothing

Why all the fuss? Nothing has changed with the discovery of Judas’ Gospel. Jesus rightly said: People are so easily turned away from the truth.

But before anything else, we shouldn’t consider this book “Good News” for it discredits the more acceptable testimonies of four other reliable and corroborating witnesses – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – regarding the real relationship between Jesus and Judas. Why a single apocryphal document should be granted so much exposure and importance could only point to media’s inherent desire for attention and, naturally, revenue. Especially coming from a network that openly espouses the still-unproven Theory of Evolution, this latest scoop could be nothing but a relapse of National Geographic’s “sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism”. (From “A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic” at http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp.)

If there is anything that we find fresh in this circa-AD-300 manuscript, it is the emphasis it puts on the attention Christ has for Judas, the supposed author of the book. That He should be seen as more intimate with Judas than with any other Apostle, merely points to the writer’s intention to divert us from the more commonly accepted viewpoint. At the very least, it provides an alternative perspective which highlights Jesus’ efforts to reach out to His would-be betrayer.

However, the logic of Jesus trying to convince Judas to betray Him in order to give way to His sacrifice mimics the logic of Satan tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and offering the same to Adam in order for them to become like God. It practically pushes Judas to commit a sin, something that Jesus would not have thought of doing or teaching. This alone puts the whole idea under suspicion. It must be out of an abysmal desperation that Jesus would do such a thing as if he had not recognized Judas’ real character that would eventually lead to his greed and his act of betrayal. Why have to go through the pain and agony of sweating blood and water and the crucifixion itself if He Himself had taken the effort of convincing a dear friend to fulfill His supposedly masochistic desire to die a loathsome death? Or wasn’t it altogether because one of His disciples would betray Him while the rest would desert Him and that even His Father would “forsake” Him that led Him through such intense agony?

The romantic if not glossy picture we get from the Gnostics’ version of the Gospel, for all intents and purposes, destroys all our presumptions of God having given human beings “free will”. It makes a robot or a puppet out of Judas as it makes a schemer out of Jesus. It divests the two protagonists of any semblance of “being what they really are” – the products of all that they had been taught or destined to become: one, the sent from God and, the other, the sent from Satan. The very substance of their characters is lost in this apparently make-believe or fictional and mystical concept.

Finally, it takes away the real force of evil or wickedness that Satan portrays in Scriptures as well as in real life. With Jesus whispering to Judas what He wanted him to do, who needs Satan in the picture? Gospel of Judas? Make that “gossip spell” or “Goss-spell” of Judas.

Ultimately then, these things have not changed with the presentation of this new Judas character, namely:

1. Jesus was betrayed by a close friend, was crucified and then resurrected and ascended to heaven. The word “betrayal” presumes a reversal or a destruction of deep trust, something that Judas actually did. Obeying Jesus’ instructions to betray Him would be “obedience” not “betrayal”.
2. Judas made money betraying Jesus and hanged himself for his lack of repentance – an avenue he could have easily utilized if indeed he had his “marching orders” from Christ. On the contrary, Satan won him over – Satan’s ultimate intention -- when he (Judas) despaired over his dastardly deed.
3. Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1) in the circle of Apostles who would carry on the work of Christ. Had he repented, Judas could have been a better witness to people particularly the Jews than all the rest of the Apostles just as Paul -- a persecutor of Christians – was to the Gentiles. A betrayer-turned-saint could have only been a great asset to His work if Jesus had intended it that way. Perhaps, He did out of His great compassion but that Judas missed the chance.
4. That Judas killed himself points to the reality and the depth of the guilt he experienced from betraying Jesus. Had Jesus given specific prior instructions to Judas to “do his deed”, then such guilt would not have been present at all or, in the least, would have been so easy to bear. Either way, Judas would not have behaved so violently upon himself as if he had no initial knowledge and approval from the Lord Himself. We know he never had.
5. Finally, our faith in Jesus is not at all affected by this new twist in Judas’ character as our worship is directed to the Savior and not to the betrayer. Our attention is toward the Giver of Life and not the Harbinger of Death.

And this is all that this manuscript aims in doing: To divert the focus of humans from their responsibility of trusting and worshiping the Jesus revealed in the four Gospel accounts. By diluting the import of valid witnesses to the life of Christ, this “bad news” diminishes the clarity of the picture we have of our Lord’s sufferings by incorporating false motivations and erroneous history. Mystics aim to mystify, if you haven’t heard the news.

They say that the making of this book as well as others that propose modern views of Christ, such as The Da Vinci Code, supposedly “create history” in the sense that they supply us with new perspective with which we can reevaluate or reengineer the character of Christ and thus our attitude toward Him – that is, our faith or lack of it. In short, people simply make new suppositions or wantonly distort foundational history to destroy the faith of millions, if not to support their lack of it.

This is not a new strategy. It is as old as Satan. To destroy the hero, make the villain look good. To discredit the leader, make his followers look and feel lost. The serpent did that to God by telling Adam and Eve, “…God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And so after sinning, Adam and Eve learned how to pass on the blame to others. Eve blamed the Serpent for her sin and Adam blamed Eve for his own. Guess who the Serpent blames? Who else but God. In this case, Jesus is made to appear as a benevolent hero-villain, all rolled into one. How very clever of Satan: pointing the spotlight as well as passing on the blame on Jesus while he (Satan) lurks in the darkness.

You want to make people forget how evil you are or that you even exist? Just focus on the good guy and make him appear a bit evil or untrustworthy – no, genially manipulative -- and you just might succeed. That is the story of the “Gossip-spell” of Judas.

Good try. BUT BE WARNED: Satan will try and try again.

(Photo is that of the Fort Bonifacio War Memorial in Taguig City.)