The Gospel of Judas: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of 'the Betrayer's Gospel' [Annotated] 3161509781, 9783161509780, 9783161517662

Citation preview

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity Herausgeber/Editors Christoph Markschies (Berlin) · Martin Wallraff (Basel) Christian Wildberg (Princeton) Beirat/Advisory Board Peter Brown (Princeton) · Susanna Elm (Berkeley) Johannes Hahn (Münster) · Emanuela Prinzivalli (Rom) Jörg Rüpke (Erfurt)

64

Lance Jenott

The Gospel of Judas Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of the ‘Betrayer’s Gospel’

Mohr Siebeck

Lance Jenott, born 1980; studied History, Classics, and Religion at the University of Washington (Seattle) and Princeton University; holds a Ph. D. in the Religions of Late Antiquity from Princeton University.

e-ISBN PD 978-3-16-151766-2 ISBN 978-3-16-150978-0 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my Parents, John Jenott and Sylvia Clarke Riddell

Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of my doctoral thesis which I completed in Fall 2010 at Princeton University. I owe a great deal of thanks to everyone who contributed to it over the years. I must first thank my doctoral supervisor, Elaine Pagels, who sharpened my ideas and carefully read drafts of each chapter. My mentors at Princeton – John Gager, Martha Himmelfarb, Anne Marie Luijendijk, Peter Schäfer, and Christian Wildberg – opened my mind to new worlds and provided invaluable advice. I would also like to thank my mentors at the University of Washington in Seattle: Michael Williams played a formative role in my education, and I owe him an indelible debt of gratitude. Daniel C. Waugh, Carol G. Thomas, Scott Noegel, Martin Jaffee, and Christopher Vanneson of Pierce College all showed me the virtue of historical studies. A special thanks must go to my dear friends at Princeton, especially Eduard Iricinschi and Philippa Townsend with whom I first read the Gospel of Judas, and to Geoff Smith, Mika Ahuvia, and Alex Kocar who commented on drafts of the chapters and consistently provided valuable insight. I am grateful for my many other friends who brought cheer over the years, especially Ginny Clark, Mairaj Syed, Joel Blecher, Rachel Lindsey, and Sarit Kattan Gribetz. I must also thank the dedicated administrators of Princeton’s Religion Department, Lorraine Fuhrmann, Pat Bogdziewicz, Kerry Smith, Mary Kay Bodnar, and Jeff Guest. John Turner and his wife Elizabeth Sterns deserve special recognition for the unforgettable time they made available to me in Lincoln. I have also gained many insights from conversations with Patricia Crone, Karen King, Christoph Markschies, and Louis Painchaud. I thank everyone in the Nordic Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism Network, especially Ismo Dunderberg, Antti Marjanen, Einar Thomassen, Uwe-Karsten Plisch, Tuomas Rasimus, Christian Bull, René Falkenberg, Katrine Brix, Mikael Haxby, Dylan Burns, Tilde Bak, Outi Lehtipuu, Nanna Liv Olsen, Johanna Brankaer, Päivi Vähäkangas, Alin Suciu, and Hugo Lundhaug. Finally I would like to thank my mother and father, to whom this book is dedicated, and my brothers Eric and Logan for their enduring love. Princeton, New Jersey, 2011

Lance Jenott

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................ VII

Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’ ..... 7 A. Introduction: Christus Victor ............................................................ 7 B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology? ............................................. 11 I. Phantasmal Docetism................................................................... 14 II. Separationist Docetism ................................................................ 15 III. Jesus’ Two Natures ..................................................................... 17 C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death.................................. 23 D. Baptism as Reenactment of Christus Victor .................................... 30 E. The Exaltation of Adam’s Great Race ............................................. 33 F. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 36

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples ................................................. 37 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 37 B. Politics of the Eucharist .................................................................. 44 C. The Disciples’ Eucharist ................................................................. 47 D. The Temple Vision ......................................................................... 56 E. The Future of the Apostolic Cult ..................................................... 63 I. The Identity of the Figure in 40.3 ................................................ 64 II. The Meaning of DzǣdzǫǵǶǞǯǣǫ ....................................................... 65 III. Those who say ‘We are equal to angels’ ...................................... 66 F. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 68

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation ................................................. 70 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 70 B. The Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, and his Four Attendants ................ 74 C. The Absence of Barbelo and a Family Trinity ................................. 78 D. The Realms of Autogenes ............................................................... 80 E. The Incorruptible Race ................................................................... 85 F. Cosmic Numerology ....................................................................... 88 G. Eleleth and the Apostate Angels ..................................................... 94 H. The Problem of Mortality ............................................................. 100

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt: Codex Tchacos as a Collection .. 102 A. Introduction.................................................................................. 102 B. Date and Provenance of the Codex................................................ 103 C. Contents of the Codex .................................................................. 105 D. Codicology and Cost of Production .............................................. 108 E. The Scribe and Owner(s)............................................................... 117 F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos....................................................... 123

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 130 Appendix A: Text and Translation..................................................... 134 Appendix B: Commentary ................................................................. 188 Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos................................... 222

Bibliography ..................................................................................... 229 Index of References .......................................................................... 239 Index of Modern Authors .................................................................. 248 Index of Subjects .............................................................................. 251



Introduction The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Greek, probably in the second-century by a Christian author living somewhere in Mediterranean world. We now possess it in a single Coptic translation from a fourthcentury papyrus manuscript (Codex Tchacos) which was probably discovered in Egypt in the 1970s, held by antiquities dealers for decades, and only made widely available in April 2006. Although its title identifies it as a ‘Gospel’ (euaggelion), it differs significantly from the more familiar canonical Gospels in both genre and content. Judas purports to be a dialogue between Jesus and his twelve disciples, and sometimes Judas Iscariot alone, in the days just before Jesus went to his crucifixion. In many ways Judas assumes a quite different theology and mythology from the canonical Gospels: Jesus condemns his twelve disciples for serving a false god; he tells the disciples that he is not the son of their god, and that they do not know his true identity; he tells them that they belong only to the races of mortal humanity instead of the immortal “holy race” that pre-exists in the heavens. My goal in this book is to explore the social setting and unique theological views of Judas’s author in order to understand how his voice fits into the history and development of the ancient Christian Church. But this book is not only about the Gospel of Judas. Although much of it focuses on explaining difficult passages of the text, it is also about controversies over church leadership and ritual practice, sectarian polemics and identity, mythological self-understanding, and how modern scholars conceptualize early Church history. Methodologically, I analyze the Gospel of Judas as a Christian Gospel without relying on Gnosticism as a heuristic device. The pioneering work of Michael Williams and Karen King offers important correctives to the skewed picture of early Christianity that has been reiterated through the idea of Gnosticism. Nevertheless, most researchers were quick to interpret Judas as a Gnostic Gospel. As one prominent scholar puts it, “Since [Judas] is a Gnostic text, everything has to be constructed from a Gnostic point of

2

Introduction

view, not seen through a New Testament lens. This may seem self-evident, but the two kinds of representation are easily confused.”1 I suggest, however, that even more confusion has been introduced into the discussion of Judas by presupposing the very existence of a Gnostic point of view. Given the wide variety of perspectives both within the New Testament itself and among so-called Gnostic texts, I genuinely have no idea what constitutes a Gnostic point of view or a New Testament lens. Nevertheless, many researchers continue to employ these questionable generalizations in the service of historical analysis. In the following chapters, I provide new interpretations of the Gospel of Judas that complicate previous scholarly analyses, especially those which have read it through the lens of Gnosticism. The National Geographic Society (NGS) first revealed the text of the Gospel of Judas in April of 2006 with the publication of two books. The first offered an annotated English translation with introductory essays by the editors and translators Rodolphe Kasser, Gregor Wurst, and Marvin Meyer, along with an additional essay about the history of ancient Christianity and Gnostic heresy by popular church historian Bart Ehrman. The second volume, written by NGS investigative journalist Herbert Krosney, discussed the discovery of the manuscript, its life on the antiquities market (spiced with tales of its time spent in an Ohio freezer a long Island safe deposit box), the story of its acquisition by scholars, and how conservators reconstructed it like a jigsaw puzzle from mere scraps. The initial NGS publication interpreted Judas Iscariot’s figure in the Gospel of Judas as Jesus’ favorite disciple and friend who, far from betraying his master, faithfully carried out Jesus’ request to hand him over for crucifixion. This bold interpretation largely determined the terms of the debate for much subsequent discussion of the new Gospel. Their portrayal of a rehabilitated Judas quickly elicited a critical response from other scholars who saw a much more demonic portrayal of Judas Iscariot. Some even claimed that Judas’s Gospel portrays him more demonically than any other Gospel. One of my objectives in this book is to shift the focus of discussion away from the character of Judas Iscariot and toward what I see as the author’s primary preoccupation, the immoral character of Jesus’ twelve disciples. Judas opens with Jesus laughing when he sees his disciples offering a eucharistic prayer. As the narrative continues, Jesus’ criticism of the disciples thickens when he likens them to thoroughly immoral priests who   1

Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Protagonist, its Composition, and its Community,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 76.



Introduction

3

offer human sacrifice to an angry god. How are we to understand such a critical representation of the Twelve? Because many scholars read Judas as a Gnostic gospel that denies any value in the death of Jesus, they see its depiction of the disciples offering sacrifice as a Gnostic criticism of orthodox Christianity’s sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death and the Eucharist ritual that reenacts it. Others, including myself, have suggested that Judas’s criticism of human sacrifice was directed at church leaders who promoted sacrificial martyrdoms. In Chapter 1, I argue that Judas interprets Jesus’ sacrificial death in a positive light, as an event which brought salvation to humanity through a triumph over demons and the power of Death. Far from embracing a docetic Christology that denies the reality and value of the crucifixion, Judas assumes a Christology of Jesus’ two natures that was shared by many early Christians who maintained a distinction between the heavenly savior and his human body, and found positive soteriological meaning in the death of his human nature alone. I then proceed in Chapter 2 to discuss the target of Judas’s criticism. Building upon my argument in Chapter 1, I argue that Judas’s author was not concerned with the sacrificial theology of Jesus’ death or martyrdom, but rather with the question of who can rightfully claim leadership in the church, preside over church meetings, and administer the Eucharist. The author was angry about the nascent clergy’s claim to unique positions of authority in the church, which included the exclusive right to mediate between God and humanity through the administration of the Eucharist. In response, he launched a vituperative smear campaign against the legitimacy of the clergy by attacking the foundation of their authority, the twelve disciples. In direct opposition to the myth that Jesus had chosen the Twelve to evangelize the world, establish churches, and transmit his teachings to their own chosen successors, the bishops, Judas’s story claims that the twelve disciples never understood Jesus correctly, were blasphemous disciples, and like wicked priests led people astray in the worship of a false god. By telling the story of the twelve disciples this way, the author hoped to convince his contemporaries that the upstart clergy’s claims to leadership were bogus, and that their entire cult was invalid. Another question scholars continue to debate is how the Gospel of Judas relates to so-called Sethian texts. Modern scholars use the term ‘Sethian’ to refer to a group of ancient religious writings that share unique characters, stories, themes, and interpretations of scripture, and frequently appeal to Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, as the spiritual ancestor of a holy race, ‘the seed of Seth.’ Although we know little about the people who actually wrote these texts, most scholars believe that they belonged to a group of Christians who understood themselves as the spiritual progeny



4

Introduction

of Seth. Just as Seth represented a fresh start for humanity after the tragedy of Cain and Able, these Sethian Christians saw themselves as agents of divine Providence placed in the world for its betterment. They were deeply concerned with the problem of evil and the demonic forces that oppress humanity, and with ways of improving the human condition until the world’s final consummation.2 Based on the mythological story of creation in the Gospel of Judas, scholars agree that its author participated in this variety of early Christianity in one way or another. However, disagreement continues over how to understand the details of Judas’s creation story, what it reveals about the development of Sethian theology, and even whether it can be considered ‘genuine’ Sethian thought. The editors of the initial NGS translation proposed that Judas’s myth represents an early form of Sethian theology that had not yet developed into the more complex Sethian thought as found in texts such as the Apocryphon of John. Conversely, other scholars maintain that Judas’s mythology represents a late, corrupt, and confused blend of theology that only bears superficial affinities to ‘genuine’ Sethian texts. In Chapter 3, I discuss the question of how to make sense of the Gospel of Judas’s myth of creation. I argue that one need not rely on linear models of development that posit relatively early or late forms of myth. Instead, I propose that we interpret differences among Sethian texts in terms of their authors’ individual agendas and commitments. In response to interpretations of Judas’s myth that stress its confused and corrupt character, I offer explanations for how to read it in a coherent manner, as a creation story tailored to support the author’s polemic against the twelve disciples whose cult worship serves a false god. In Chapter 4, I leave behind questions about the ‘original’ setting of Judas’s author in the second century, and focus on the question of why anyone would have copied it in later generations. What appeal did this Gospel have for later Christians, especially the fourth-century Egyptians who translated it into Coptic and bound it in a book with other Christians writings? Scholars have observed that the various texts in Codex Tchacos reveal a marked interest in stories about persecution and martyrdom. Some have therefore seen it as evidence that “the Gnostic religion” was still  

2 The standard dossier of Sethian texts includes the Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons, Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (or Gospel of the Egyptians), Apocalypse of Adam, Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, Marsanes, Melchizedek, Thought of Norea, Allogenes, Trimorphic Protennoia, Gospel of Judas, and the untitled treatise in the Bruce Codex. For an introduction to the Sethians, see Michael A. Williams, “Sethianism,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antii Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 32–63. For a longer treatment, see John D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001).



Introduction

5

thriving in third- and fourth-century Egypt, where it suffered persecution at the hands of the Roman government and the orthodox Christian Church. In contrast, I argue that this Codex is best understood as the product of a Christian community at a time when the boundaries of orthodoxy and a limited canon of scripture had not yet been established or widely agreed upon. The Christian character of the Codex is visible in the scribal practices of the person who copied it, especially Christian nomina sacra and crucifix iconography. In a world pervaded by hostile spirits that threatened nearly all aspects of daily life, a book like this one would have had broad appeal to Egyptians interested in information about how to combat demons, sought access to divine power that could protect them from harm, and found inspiration in stories about heroes like Jesus and other martyrs who overcame demonic attacks. Finally, I present a new Coptic edition, English translation, and exegetical commentary of the Gospel of Judas (Appendices A–B). I created the new edition because it became apparent in my initial research that many basic text-critical problems remained in the National Geographic’s editio princeps which obstructed interpretation of this Gospel. In some instances I have improved upon the reading of the NGS transcript in places where only partially visible ink traces remain. In other cases, I have removed problematic reconstructions and suggested alternatives which make greater sense of the text. In the following chapters, I point to many of my new readings as they become relevant for the discussion. A final word about the date of the Gospel of Judas is necessary since scholars hold widely divergent views about when the original composition occurred. As I noted above, the single extant manuscript, a Coptic translation of a now-lost Greek original, dates in all probability to the fourth century. The original composition, then, could theoretically have been composed at any time between the first and fourth centuries. Because Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, refers to a Gospel of Judas around the year 180, many scholars date the original composition to a period slightly before his time in the middle of the second century. Others, however, argue that there may have been more than one Gospel of Judas in antiquity, and that the one we possess comes from a time after Irenaeus. Still others suggest that our Judas is a composite text, consisting of an original proto-Judas known to Irenaeus, to which a later editor added the Sethian mythological section. I date the original composition of our Gospel of Judas to the middle of the second century and believe it was roughly the same text known to Irenaeus. There is no indication that more than one Gospel of Judas circulated in antiquity. Those who maintain that multiple Gospels carried this title follow a dubious reasoning based on the evaluation of the character of



6

Introduction

Judas Iscariot: while Irenaeus implies that his text portrays Judas positively, ours allegedly portrays him negatively; therefore the two cannot be the same Gospel. There are, however, a number of other ways to explain this supposed discrepancy. The fact that modern scholars have been so divided over how to interpret the character of Judas in this Gospel could suggest that Irenaeus himself found its portrayal of Judas to be ambiguous. In any event, regardless of how Irenaeus interpreted the text, it would have been in his interest to slander those who wrote it by claiming that it rehabilitates the arch villain. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence of secondary redaction that requires a post-Irenaean date. In the process of transmission texts do of course almost always undergo some degree of alteration. But with only one manuscript of the Gospel of Judas, there is no empirical way for us to determine the extent to which it could have been altered from its original version. Internal evidence of redaction derived from form criticism and possible literary seams are too speculative to conclude that our Gospel must have undergone various stages of redaction by multiple editors. Therefore while I recognize the complexities involved with each hypothesis, my own conclusion is that our Gospel of Judas is the work of a single author who wrote sometime before Irenaeus, probably around the middle of the second century, and like all authors, was inspired by and drew from various sources in the innovative creation of his own narrative. The author wrote his Gospel the middle of the second century at a time when ecclesiastical offices and the myth of apostolic succession were still new and in debate, when a closed canon of scripture was far from agreed upon, and when orthodox Christian teaching had not yet been determined (if it ever has). Like his more famous contemporary Marcion, the author of Judas denies any credibility to the notion that the twelve disciples were a holy group of men chosen by Jesus to lead the Christian church.



Chapter 1

Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’ A. Introduction: Christus Victor Many scholars describe the Gospel of Judas as a ‘bad news’ Gospel. They allege that it has no interest in salvation, that its Jesus comes not to save humanity but to condemn it, and that his sacrificial death has no redemptive value. According to Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhart Bethge, Judas provides “no alternative to the dreadful description of the reality governed by the archons in which the ‘human race’ finds itself. For these people there is apparently no salvation, but only condemnation and destruction.”1 Others propose a similarly gloomy interpretation, that Judas is an anti-Gospel composed to condemn humanity.2 Yet the Gospel of Judas begins with a statement to the contrary, that when Jesus appeared upon the earth, “he performed signs and great wonders for the salvation of humanity” (33.6–9). Then again near its narrative climax, Jesus prophesies that after Judas Iscariot offers him as a sacrifice, the demonic world ruler will be destroyed and “the [fruit]3 of the great race 1 Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akadamie der Wissenschaften. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band 161 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 441: “es keine Alternative zur grausamen Schilderung der von den Archonten bestimmten Wirklichkeit gibt, in der sich das ‘Menschengeschlecht’ befindet. Für diese Menschen gibt es offensichtlich keine Erlösung, sondern nur die Verurteilung und die Vernichtung.” 2 See, for example, Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Protagonist, its Composition, and its Community,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 75–94, esp. 93: “The Gospel of Judas evidently shows no interest in redemption and salvation of humankind, since everyone born mortal is under the control of the erroneous stars and thus destined for eternal doom.” Cf. John D. Turner, “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas: Soteriology or Demonology?” in Codex Judas Papers, 95–133, esp. 96–98; idem, “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition,” in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, ed. Madeleine Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 196. 3 I reconstruct ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ, ‘[fruit].’ The Critical Edition reconstructs ѱƉѷƉ>ѹ@ѱѯѵ, ‘image.’ See below (pp. 33–34) for discussion.

8

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

of Adam shall be exalted” (57.9–12). How are we to interpret these passages if Judas has no interest in human salvation? What are the signs and great wonders that Jesus accomplishes for the salvation of humanity? How does Judas imagine that Jesus brought salvation? In this chapter, I investigate the soteriology and eschatological vision of the Gospel of Judas. As we shall see, this Gospel reflects a conventional Jewish and Christian apocalyptic mythology which assumes that the world has fallen under the domination of apostate angels who victimize humanity, lead people astray into sin and error, and pretend to be gods by receiving sacrifice. Though the majority of the human races unwittingly serve these fallen angels, there remains a minority group, a “holy race,” that dwells on earth and transmits from generation to generation the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam in order to resist demonic rule. Despite the power of these apostate angels, their reign will not last indefinitely. God will intervene in human history and execute divine justice by putting to shame both the demons and the unrighteous people who serve them. In this scenario, as in others strands of apocalyptic thought, the righteous among humanity will ultimately be exalted and join God in the eternal realms. How and when will God execute his justice? In the Gospel of Judas’s apocalyptic imagination, Jesus’ appearance on earth, his signs and wonders, his teaching and revelations, and, as I will argue, his sacrificial death, mark the beginning of the eschatological sequence. For after Jesus prophesies to Judas that “you shall sacrifice the person who bears me,” he continues with eschatological pronouncements of monumental social and cosmic significance: “[the thrones] of the realm have been [defeated]; the kings have become weak; the races of the angels have mourned; the wickedness they [sowed . . .] is obliterated; [and] the ruler is wiped out.” Jesus then proclaims that “the [fruit] of the great race of Adam shall be exalted” (56.17– 57.12). It is clear that Jesus’ sacrificial death precipitates this story of salvation. Yet as many scholars have observed, nothing in the Gospel of Judas suggests that its author interpreted Jesus’ sacrifice as an atonement for sin.4 Instead, Judas shares with many ancient Christians a different understanding of atonement, what Gustaf Aulén calls the ‘mythological’ and ‘dramatic view’ of Christ’s death.5 Aulén’s study of atonement theology in the 4 Marvin Meyer, “Interpreting Judas: Ten Passages in the Gospel of Judas,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 52: “The crucifixion will be, in a way, a sacrifice, but there is no indication that it has any salvific value as, for example, a sacrifice for sins.” Cf. April DeConick, The Thriteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (New York: Continuum, 2007), 131. 5 Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. A. G. Herbert (New York: MacMillan, 1956), 4.

A. Introduction: Christus Victor

9

early Church, focused on the writings now included in the New Testament and the Church Fathers, stresses that early Christians did not understand Jesus’ death exclusively as an atonement sacrifice for human sin. This was only one popular interpretation formulated by his early followers (e.g., Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, John). Many early Christians also understood his death as the climactic event in a mythological drama, an act of cosmic significance which broke the dominion of demons, annihilated Satan, and liberated humanity from Sin and Death. As Aulén observes, This type of view may be described provisionally as the “dramatic.” Its central theme is the idea of the Atonement as a Divine conflict and victory; Christ – Christus Victor – fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the “tyrants” under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself.6

The Epistle to the Hebrews exemplifies the dramatic view of atonement as a victory over demonic power: “Since therefore the children share flesh and blood, [Christ] himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the Devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death” (2:14–15).7 Aulén argues that although the dramatic view of atonement predominated among early Christians, it was largely repressed by such medieval theologians as Anselm and Abelard who sought to rationalize redemption theology away from its more irrational, mythological roots.8 According to Aulén, subsequent Christian theologians came to regard the dramatic view as representing a lower theological level and as being able to contribute only images and symbolical expressions, not a clearly worked-out theological scheme. There lies behind this criticism a particular view of the nature of theology: an implied demand that the Christian faith must be clearly expressed in the form of a rational doctrine . . . They disliked intensely the “mythological” language of the early Church about Christ’s redemptive work, and the realistic, often undeniably grotesque imagery, in which the victory of Christ over the devil, or the deception of the devil, was depicted in lurid colours. Thus the whole dramatic view was branded as “mythological.” The matter was settled. The patristic teaching was of inferior value, and could be summarily relegated to the nursery or the lumber-room of theology.9

The soteriological narrative of the Gospel of Judas – including the sacrifice of Jesus’ body, the obliteration of the demonic world ruler, and the exaltation of the great race of Adam – is wholly intelligible in terms of the Christus Victor mythology which, as Aulén reminds us, was so popular 6

Aulén, Christus Victor, 4. See similarly Colossians 2:13–15; Romans 6:1–14; Galatians 1:4; John 12:31–33, 16:8–11; 1 Timothy 2:9–10; 2 Timothy 1:20; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 5:5, 12:22. 8 Aulén, Christus Victor, 1–15. 9 Aulén, Christus Victor, 9–10. 7

10

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

among early Christians. And not only the Gospel of Judas, but as we shall see, other Sethian, or so-called ‘classic Gnostic’ texts depict the messiah as a figure who brought salvation by descending into the human person of Jesus, undergoing crucifixion, and conquering over demons and the power of Death. To be sure, not all Sethian texts refer to the death of Jesus; but those that do, like Judas, interpret his passion through the dramatic view of redemption. However, many scholars overlook this interpretation of Jesus’ sacrificial death in Gospel of Judas because they read it in terms of Gnosticism and the various clichés associated with that idea. The cliché of Docetism – the denial of the reality of Jesus’ incarnation, suffering, and death – has led many scholars to blur the connection Judas makes between Jesus’ sacrifice and salvation. As we shall see, interpreters who see a docetic Christology in Judas maintain that it denies the redemptive power of Jesus’ sacrifice because, they assert, he did not really die. Furthermore, interpretations of the Gospel of Judas’s attitude toward sacrifice have been influenced by another cliché about Gnosticism, that Gnostics rejected ritual in exchange for salvation through esoteric knowledge. According to Kurt Rudolph, this alleged Gnostic disapproval of ritual “stems from the nature of Gnosis itself”: In its very conception of the world [Gnosis] is really anti-cultic: All “hylic” (material) institutions are disqualified and regarded as futile for redemption. Strictly speaking this is true also of the cultic domain. Sacraments like baptism and the last supper (eucharist) cannot effect salvation and therefore do not possess those qualities that are “necessary for salvation”.10

Yet because of the rich evidence for cultic practices revealed in the Nag Hammadi sources, Rudolph immediately qualifies his description by pointing out that in practice “only a very few branches. . . adopted this radical standpoint.” The fact that Rudolph maintains the old cliché instead of abandoning it altogether only reinforces the impression of how pervasive it is in scholarly formulations about Gnosticism. The idea that Gnostics regarded ritual as ineffective also lurks in the background of interpretations of the Gospel of Judas. Many scholars have argued that Judas contains a wholesale rejection of ritual, including sacrifice, baptism, and Eucharist. Accordingly, when Jesus predicts that Judas Iscariot will sacrifice him, it must be understood as a Gnostic criticism of

10 Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. R. McLaughlin Wilson (SanFrancisco: Harper & Row, 1987; reprinted from Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 218.

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

11

Christian atonement theology and the Eucharist which ritually commemorates it.11 In this chapter, I interpret the Christology and soteriology of the Gospel of Judas without relying on presuppositions informed by the traditional clichés associated with Gnosticism. I will first discuss the question of what Christology Judas assumes and the difficulties involved with interpreting it as docetic. I argue that Judas’s Christology is best understood as a variation of the two-natures Christology which one finds throughout the writings of many early Christian theologians who maintained a distinction between Jesus’ human body and the divine being that descended into it. This discussion will pave the way for my interpretation of Judas in terms of a Christian soteriology which maintained that the suffering of the savior’s human nature alone effected salvation. I will then turn to the question of how Judas interprets the sacrificial death of Jesus. Previous scholarship notwithstanding, I argue that we need not understand this Gospel’s evaluation of sacrifice as altogether negative. Jesus’ sacrificial death may be understood as a positive soteriological event in Judas if we read this Gospel’s rhetoric on sacrifice in continuity with a broader Christian supersessionist ideology which denigrated animal sacrifices of Jews and pagans while simultaneously upheld the sacrifice of Jesus as the watershed act of salvation. Far from advocating a docetic denial of the passion, Judas assumes that the sacrificial death of Jesus’ body precipitated the salvation of humanity according to the mythology of Christus Victor. By destroying the curse of death placed upon humanity by the demonic world ruler, Jesus allows “the great race of Adam” to be exalted.

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology? Docetic interpretations of the Gospel of Judas perpetuate a long-standing scholarly tradition of associating Gnosticism with Docetism. One often reads that Gnostics believed in a docetic Jesus whose death had no importance for human salvation.12 Indeed, as Elaine Pagels has pointed out, “For 11 See Louis Painchaud, “À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,” Laval théologique et philosophique 62.3 (2006): 553–568; idem, “Polemical Aspects of the Gospel of Judas,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 171–186; Frank Williams, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, its Exegesis, and its Place in Church History,” Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008), 372. 12 Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (2 nd edition, revised; Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 78: “the suffering and death they [i.e., the archons] are able to inflict upon him are not real at all.” Jonas admits in a footnote, however, that The Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3) evaluates Jesus’ suffering and death with “a religious significance far surpassing what is

12

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

many, gnosticism is virtually synonymous with docetism.”13 J. N. D. Kelly exemplifies the traditional view in his classic study of early Christian doctrines: Known as Docetism, the distinctive thesis which gave it its name (dokein = ‘to seem’) was that Christ’s manhood, and hence His sufferings, were unreal, phantasmal . . . Docetism was not a simple heresy on its own; it was an attitude which infected a number of heresies, particularly Marcionism and Gnosticism.14

According to Kelly, Docetism naturally appealed to Gnostics because of their contempt for material existence: “Because in general they disparaged matter and were disinterested in history, the Gnostics . . . were prevented from giving full value to the fundamental Christian doctrine of the incarnation of the Word.”15 One finds similar generalizations throughout scholarship on Gnosticism. Because the first commentators on the Gospel of Judas read it as a Gnostic Gospel, they naturally found a docetic interpretation of Jesus’ incarnation and death. In Bart Ehrman’s estimation, “Jesus only appears to have a real flesh-and-blood body for his time here on earth in human form. He needs to escape this mortal coil to return to his heavenly home.” His death has no significance for the salvation of humanity, but only benefits Jesus as “his own escape” from a bodily prison.16 According to Ehrman, usual in so-called Christian Gnosticism.” Such an admission of variety on this point is telling since Jonas had so few documents from Nag Hammadi at his disposal (his other chief “gnostic” sources were the heresiological reports, the Corpus Hermeticum, W. Till’s edition of the Apocryphon of John [BG 8502], and the Mandaean Ginza and Johannesbuch). One wonders if Jonas’s analysis would have been significantly different had he known the variety of perspectives on Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion represented among the Nag Hammadi writings. 13 Elaine Pagels, “Gnostic and Orthodox views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for the Christian Response to Persecution,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale New Haven, Connecticut, March 28– 31, 1978, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1980), vol. 1, 262–283, citation from 262. For a critical discussion of Docetism in so-called Gnostic texts, see Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003), 208–217; Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990), 122. 14 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (revised edition; San Francisco: Harper, 1978), 141. 15 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 28. 16 Bart Ehrman, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” in The Gospel of Judas, ed. Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, Gregor Wurst (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2006), 109 –110. Cf. Wilhelm Pratscher, “Judas Iskariot im Neuen Testament und im Judasevangelium,” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010), 4n15: “Die Christologie (inkl. Soteriologie) entspricht in der Vorstellung der Sendung Jesu aus der himmlischen Welt und der Rückkehr in sie der traditionellen kirchlichen Präexistenz- und Sendungschristologie (vgl. Phil 2:5 –11; Joh 1:1–18; Kol 1:15 –16 u.ö.), sie ist aber betont doketisch orientiert.”

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

13

“salvation comes not through the death and resurrection of Jesus, but through the revelation of secret knowledge that he provides.”17 Relying on the same cliché about Gnostic liberation from the body, James Robinson asserts that “the ultimate point” of this Gospel is that “with Judas’ help Jesus, or more exactly, the divine part trapped in Jesus’ human body, is escaping back to heaven”; that Gnostics were fond of “twisting” the passion narrative, so that “the crucifixion is what liberates Jesus’ divine self to escape from his human body”; that “orthodox Christianity worships the crucified Jesus, but Gnostics worship the divine spark of the divine liberated by the crucifixion from imprisonment in the body of flesh”; and finally that this Gospel explains how “the divine spark imprisoned in Jesus escaped back to heaven.”18 Others see Judas Iscariot as “a kind of true Gnostic priest” who helps Jesus “presumably by releasing Jesus’ spirit from its bodily imprisonment.”19 Ehrman develops a docetic interpretation even further in his book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (2006). According to his analysis, there are in fact two kinds of Docetism: a ‘phantasmal’ type, which posits that Jesus did not have a regular flesh-and-blood body, but merely appeared to people in human form like a ghost; and second, a ‘separationist’ type, which affirms the reality of Jesus’ incarnation, but maintains that he evaded suffering by abandoning his body before the passion.20 According to Ehrman, the Gospel of Judas offers a double dose of docetism by the inclusion of both types. The phantasmal type, he maintains, is visible in Judas’s opening comment that Jesus would often appear to his disciples “as a child” (ѫŶțƩѳѯѷ 33.19–20). Ehrman extrapolates from this passage that “Jesus was polymorphous, able to change his appearance at will, not a real flesh-and-blood human . . . Jesus was not really human but only appeared to be.”21 In addition, he and other scholars find a form of separationist docetism in Jesus’ language about “the person who bears me” (ѱѳҁѩљљѷѳŶѻѯѳљѣѩƩѩѯљѣ 56.20–21). I shall treat both of these interpretations in turn.

17

Ehrman, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” 102. James Robinson, The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel (2 nd edition; New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 228, 230, 231, 232, 234 respectively. 19 Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 106. 20 Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 107–110. 21 Ehrman, Lost Gospel, 108. 18

14

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

I. Phantasmal Docetism Ehrman’s argument for phantasmal Docetism in the Gospel of Judas is complicated first and foremost by the fact that the meaning of the Coptic word țѳѯѷ, which underlies the translation ‘child,’ remains highly ambiguous. Some scholars suggest that the Coptic phrase in question (ѫŶțѳѯѷ) does not at all mean “as a child,” but should be understood adverbially as “he appeared to his disciples when necessary.”22 Yet even if we accept the reading that Jesus sometimes appeared to his disciples as a child, such an idea need not be understood in terms of a docetic Christology. In the canonical Gospels, Jesus disappears like a ghost, though Luke emphatically says he is not one (24:31–43), and eerily enters securely locked rooms as if walking through walls (John 20:19–26). In Mark and Matthew’s Gospels Jesus has the power to transform into other forms (ǮǧǶǣǮDZdzǸȀǪǩ Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2), while Luke (9:29) says that the appearance of his face changed into something else (ǧƃǥǧŲǯǧǶDZϕ ǶͅǧǫƃơǦDZǴǶDZάDzdzDZǵȀDzDZǷǣǷƃǶDZάˮǶǧdzDZǯ). If, therefore, Judas’s Jesus has the miraculous power to appear to his disciples in forms other than himself, then there is no reason to assume that it is because his body is an apparition. Such power would be no more docetic than the Christology of the canonical Gospels. Indeed, commenting on the transfiguration of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Origen recounts a similar understanding of Jesus’ ability to appear to people in different ways: A tradition about him has come down to us that not only did two forms co-exist in him – the first in which everyone would see him, and another as he was transfigured openly before his disciples on the mountain when his visage shone like the sun – but that he would also appear to each person in the way they deserved. And although he was himself, he would not seem as himself to everyone . . . This tradition does not seem incredible to me, whether (the transformations happened) corporeally on account of Jesus himself, so that he appeared to people in this way or that; or whether it was on account of the Word’s nature that he did not appear in the same way to everyone. 23

As Origen says, he believes the tradition even though he does not precisely understand how Jesus accomplished the transformations. He proposes that 22

For discussion of the lexical difficulties and different suggestions as to the term’s meaning, see the note on 33.20 in Appendix B. 23 Origen, In Matthaeum commentariorum series 100 (Migne, PG vol. 13, 1750b–c): Venit ergo traditio talis ad nos de eo, quoniam non solum duae formae in cofuerunt, una quidem secundum quam omnes cum videbant, altera autem secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis suis in monte, quando et resplenduit facies eius tanquam sol, sed etiam unicuique apparebat secundum quod fuerat dignus. Et cum fuisset ipse, quasi non ipse omnibus videbatur. . . Et non mihi videtur incredibilis esse traditio haec, sive corporaliter propter ipsum Jesum, ut alio et alio modo videretur hominibus; sive propter ipsam Verbi naturam, quod non similiter cunctis apparet.

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

15

Jesus either transformed himself physically, or that people saw Jesus differently according to each one’s ability to perceive the Word. Either way, Origen expresses no concern that the story could be misconstrued as ‘phantasmal’ Docetism. The idea that Jesus could change into different forms or appear to people in different ways has nothing to do with Docetism. Christians who genuinely advocated ‘phantasmal’ Docetism (e.g., the opponents of 1 and 2 John and Ignatius; Saturninus apud Irenaeus; and Marcion apud Tertullian) evidently did not teach that Jesus changed his shape, but simply maintained that he did not truly appear in human flesh. What, then, does the Gospel of Judas mean when it describes Jesus appearing to his disciples “as a child”? Karen King observes that among other qualities such as innocence and divine wisdom, the image of a child points to the “hidden or unexpected presence of the divine.”24 Following King’s observation, I suggest that Judas deliberately echoes the beginning of Isaiah’s famous Suffering Servant discourse (53:1–12 LXX) where the prophet declares that “he was like a child (̮ȍDzǣǫǦǡDZǯ), like a root in thirsty ground, with neither beauty nor honor” (53:2). Indeed, ǶͅDzǣǫǦǡDZǯ is among the Greek words to which Judas’s Coptic term țѳѯѷ (șѳѯȡ) corresponds.25 Representing Jesus through the imagery of the Suffering Servant highlights his lowly character in human form and the fact that he was misunderstood by those who should have received him. 1 Clement quotes the same passage (̮ȍDzǣǫǦǡDZǯ) to emphasize how Jesus appeared on earth in humility and servitude, “and in this form was despised” (16:3). Judas’s author may have intended a similar meaning: that Jesus often appeared among his disciples as a child signifies that they saw him as crude and insignificant, not in his true heavenly glory. The disciples’ perception of Jesus in this way thus anticipates their misapprehension of his real nature and origin in the eternal realm later in the dialogue (34.11௅35.21). II. Separationist Docetism The Gospel of Judas maintains a distinction between Jesus’ human body and true self, that is, his divine being which came from the immortal realm (35.17–19). In this Gospel, Jesus refers to his human body by speaking of “the person who bears (ǸDZdzǧΝǯ) me.” He asserts that only his body will suffer, while his true self will remain unharmed: “tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured. Yet indeed I [say] to you, no hand of a dying mortal 24 Elaine Pagels and Karen King, Reading Judas: the Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (New York: Viking, 2007), 126–127. 25 Walter Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 631b.

16

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

[will fall] upon me . . . The person who bears me, you shall sacrifice him” (56.7–21). Ehrman and other scholars interpret Jesus’ words as a strand of ‘separationist’ Docetism – the idea that the spiritual Jesus evaded suffering by fleeing his body before the crucifixion. According to Ehrman, Judas’s Christology implies that “Jesus himself was a man in whom the divine aeon, Christ, made his temporary residence. This understanding also claimed that Christ himself did not really suffer . . . because Christ had departed from the man Jesus prior to his death.”26 In support of this interpretation, other scholars point to a climactic scene near the end of the Gospel of Judas in which someone – either Judas or Jesus – enters a luminous cloud while a revelatory voice speaks to those who remain on the ground below: Judas raised his eyes; saw the luminous cloud; and he entered it (ǼѯѹїёѵїљёȗȗѣёѷƩȗ љțƩѳёљѣёȗѫёѹљѷȟџѱљѫŶѯѹѯѣѫёѹҁёȗȗҁѥљțƩѯѹѫљѳѯѵ). Then the people standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying “[. . .] great race [. . . (3 missing lines)].” Then Judas stopped looking at Jesus. (57.22–58.6)

According to Gesine Schenke Robinson, this scene depicts “the final departure” of the spiritual Jesus from the earth before Judas Iscariot hands his body over for crucifixion.27 Key to her interpretation is a nuanced reading of the first sentence: “Judas raised his eyes; saw the luminous cloud; and he (Jesus) entered it.” Schenke Robinson stresses that while the first two clauses are grammatically connected by asyndeton (appositional linkage which does not require a conjunction), the third clause could form an independent unit due to the preceding conjunction ёѹҁ. While she understands Judas as the subject of the first two verbs, she maintains that Jesus is the subject of the third verb.28 Thus in her view, it is Jesus who enters the cloud, leaving his body behind and ascending to heaven: This time it is his final departure. . . . The scene here not only alludes to Jesus’ transfiguration in the canonical gospels . . . but obviously also to the cloud that lifts Jesus up and carries him into heaven (Luke 24:5; Acts 1:9). . . . In the final scene, the man being handed over by Judas is not the same Jesus any longer. According to the well-known docetic understanding, it is the man who temporarily carried Jesus, who gave Jesus his empty appearance; it is but an empty body, since Jesus’ inner self, the spiritual Jesus, has already left the world at the time of the “betrayal.”29

26

Ehrman, Lost Gospel, 108. Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 63–98, at 65–68. 28 The same interpretation was proposed by Birger Pearson in “The Figure of Judas in the Coptic Gospel of Judas,” unpublished paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA, November 2007. 29 Schenke Robinson, “Relationship,” 67–68. 27

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

17

Although Schenke Robinson’s interpretation is certainly possible, there is still no reason why Jesus must be seen as the figure who enters the cloud. Indeed, Judas Iscariot remains the immediate antecedent of the pronoun in the clause “and he entered it” (ǼѯѹїёѵїљёȗȗѣёѷƩȗљțƩѳёљѣёȗѫёѹ љѷȟџѱљѫŶѯѹѯѣѫёѹҁёȗȗҁѥљțƩѯѹѫљѳѯѵ). Yet even if it is Jesus who enters the cloud, what is less clear – in fact totally absent from Judas – is the alleged departure of the spiritual Jesus from his body and final ascension into heaven. The fact that “Judas stopped looking at Jesus” after the revelatory voice speaks could echo Jesus’ final ascension in Acts 1:9 (“a cloud took him from their sight”), though it may also simply indicate the end of the vision. The narrative motif of entering a cloud and hearing divine revelation need not have anything to do with Jesus’ ascension. The scene resonates more with the narrative in Exodus, where Moses enters a cloud on Mt. Sinai and hears the voice of God (Exodus 24:18–25:1). Similar imagery is used in Luke’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration, where a revelatory voice speaks out of a cloud after Jesus and his disciples enter it (9:34–35). In Acts 1:9, on the other hand, there is no revelatory voice. In any event, in the Gospel of Judas both Judas and Jesus are on earth after the voice speaks. As in the canonical Gospels, Jesus enters the guest room (ǬǣǶ̾ǭǷǮǣ Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11); the chief priests and scribes plot to arrest him, but fear the people who regard him as a prophet (Matthew 21:46, Luke 22:2); and Judas receives a bribe and hands him over to them. Nothing in Judas indicates that Jesus has left his body and ascended to heaven.30 III. Jesus’ Two Natures Jesus’ reference to “the person who bears (ǸDZdzǧΝǯ)” him has nothing to do with Docetism, but reflects an ancient metaphor which characterizes the body as a vehicle of the soul. Plato uses the same language when he describes the body “bearing on top the residence of our most divine and holy part” (Ƕ́ǯǶDZάǪǧǫDZǶ̾ǶDZǷǬǣ̓̆ǧdzǻǶ̾ǶDZǷǸǧŲdzDZǯDZǫƃŲǬǩǵǫǯǧƃDz ̾ǯǻǪǧǯǩƄ Ǯιǯ 30

Schenke Robinson (“Relationship,” 68) points to the fact that the narrator refers to Jesus only pronominally in the concluding scene. In her analysis, this is the author’s deliberate way of referring to Jesus’ “empty” body. However, if the author of Judas achieved this degree of subtlety with proper names and pronouns, then one might expect him to have taken care to specify that ‘Jesus’ per se entered the cloud on the previous page; instead he merely says “and he entered it” leaving Judas as the clear antecedent (57.24). Given Schenke Robinson’s interpretation, the pronoun ‘he’ could even suggest that only Jesus’ body entered the cloud – the very opposite of what one expects from separationist Docetism. I find it unlikely, then, that the pronominal references to Jesus in the conclusion are a deliberate attempt to indicate only the body of Jesus.

18

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

Timaeus 45a). When the younger gods received the immortal principle of soul from the Creator, they “framed around it a mortal body, and gave it the entire body to be its vehicle” (Timaeus 69c). The idea was then adopted by Philo of Alexandria, who speaks of the human body ‘bearing’ (ǸǧŲdz DZǯǶDZȍ) one’s inner self, the mind (On Creation 69). It is not surprising, then, to find Judas using the same language to speak of Jesus’ body. Ǿad Judas’s author wanted to devalue the body of Jesus, or highlight the liberation of Jesus’ spirit from the flesh, he could have drawn from a number of other popular metaphors such as the body as tomb (Ƕͅ ǵιǮǣ ǵΏǮǣ) or body as prison, also found in Plato. Instead, his description of the body as a vehicle, “the person who bears me,” indicates a much more neutral, if not positive, appraisal of Jesus’ body. 31 A distinction between the body of Jesus and his heavenly self is not docetic. As Adolph von Harnack already observed at the end of the nineteenth century, “the characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not docetism in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures.”32 The publication of the Nag Hammadi texts largely confirmed Harnack’s observation. In his seminal survey of Gnosticism, Kurt Rudolph reiterates Harnack’s view that with regard to Christology, Gnostics “entertained very varied opinions on a question which in Christianity at large was still new and in debate” so that between Gnostic and Orthodox Christologies there was “no such deep gulf as has been repeatedly asserted.” 33 Rudolph stresses that many of the so-called Gnostic Christologies in which a heavenly being descends into the flesh of Jesus are nothing more than the two-natures (or ‘pneumatic’) Christology found among many second and third-century theologians. J. N. K. Kelly describes pneumatic Christology as: 31 Louis Painchaud (“Polemical Aspects,” 175) arrives at a similar conclusion: “unlike texts such as the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or the Apocalypse of Peter, this ‘man’ [i.e. the person who bears Jesus] is not presented in a negative light. By this fact alone, the Gospel of Judas distinguishes itself from many other Gnostic texts.” Peter Nagel offers an alternative explanation, that “the person who bears me” refers not to Jesus’ body, but to someone else, such as Simon of Cyrene, who, some early Christians believed, not only carried Jesus’ cross to Calvary (as in the Synoptic tradition), but was actually mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. See Nagel, “Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 98 (2007), 268–270, with reference to 2LogosSeth (NHC VII 56.8–11) and the teaching of Basilides apud Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.24.4. However, it is highly unlikely that Judas refers to Simon of Cyrene or another person when it speaks of the “the person who bears” Jesus. Nowhere else does Judas suggest that someone else was mistaken for Jesus. In the final scene, it is Jesus whom Judas hands over to the chief priests, just as in the traditional passion narratives. 32 Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan, 4 vols. (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976), vol. 1, 260n1. 33 Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis, 158–162.

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

19

the view that in the historical Jesus Christ the pre-existent Son of God, Who is divine spirit, united Himself with human nature. This could take a variety of forms, according to the underlying conception. The idea seems sometimes to have been that the pre-existent Christ-Spirit indwelt the man Jesus, sometimes that He actually became man.34

Kelly finds the latter type – that the descended savior actually became flesh – attested in authors such as Ignatius, 2 Clement, and Irenaeus.35 Yet he finds the former type – that the descended savior merely dwelt within the humanity of Jesus – well represented among such apostolic authorities as the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian of Carthage, among others. These theologians maintain a distinction between the heavenly savior and his human nature, and can speak of his body as a garment in which his spirit was ‘clothed,’ or as a ‘vessel’ into which he descended. Like the Gospel of Judas, these theologians maintain that only Jesus’ body suffered and died, while his divine being, the Logos that descended into the body, did not – indeed could not – suffer. Yet none of them deny the soteriological value of the passion. For example, according to the Epistle of Barnabas, the savior was “made manifest” (ǸǣǯǧdzǻǪΏǯǣǫ) in a body of flesh which served as the “the vessel of the Spirit” (ǶͅǵǬǧάDZǴǶDZά Dzǯǧ͈ǮǣǶDZǴ 5.6). This was the vessel which Christ offered “as a sacrifice for our own sins” (7.3). For Barnabas, the fact that only the vessel of the savior was offered as a sacrifice in no way invalidates its redemptive value. One finds a similar interpretation of the savior’s incarnation and passion advocated by Melito, bishop of Sardis. In his Paschal Homily, he says that the savior is “by nature both God and Man” (8), and that God descended from heaven “so that after clothing himself with the one who suffers (Ƕͅǯ Dz̾ǵǹDZǯǶǣ˙ǮǸǫǣǵ̾ǮǧǯDZǴ), he might lift him up to the heights of heaven.”36 Melito then elaborates on the distinction between the savior’s body and spirit, explaining that his body “was able to suffer” while his “spirit could not die”: It is he who coming from heaven to the earth because of the suffering one, and clothing himself (˩ǯǦǷǵ̾ǮǧǯDZȍ) in that same one through a virgin’s womb, and coming forth a man, accepted the passions of the suffering one through the body which was able to suffer (Ǧǫ̽ǶDZάDzǣǪǧΝǯǦǷǯǣǮ̀ǯDZǷǵȀǮǣǶDZȍ), and dissolved the passions of the flesh. And by the spirit which could not die (ǶκǦ̿ǪǣǯǧΝǯǮ́ǦǷǯǣǮ̀ǯǻƣDzǯǧ͈ǮǣǶǫ) he killed death,

34 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 142–158, esp. 143–144, emphasis added. For further discussion of pneumatic Christology, see Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 1, 190– 199; V.A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists (London: Duckworth, 1934), 23–64. 35 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 144. 36 Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, ed. Stuart George Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 46–47.

20

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

the killer of men. For himself led as a lamb and slain as a sheep, he ransomed us from the world’s service, as from the land of Egypt.37

Melito’s view that the savior’s spirit could not die but was only ‘clothed’ in the person who suffered both affirms the two natures of the savior (God and Man) and interprets the passion through the mythology of Christus Victor: his frail humanity suffered, but his immortal spirit conquered the power of death and ransomed humanity from slavery to the ‘world’s service.’ Tertullian of Carthage offers an even more elaborate version of the twonatures Christology. Like Meltio and Barnabas, Tertullian maintains a strict distinction between the savior’s spirit, which was powerful and glorified, and his humanity, which was susceptible to suffering. In his treatise Against Praxeas, Tertullian raises the question, “In what way did the Word become flesh? Was it transformed into flesh (transfiguratus in carne), or did it put on flesh (indutus carnem)?” He follows with a detailed answer: Obviously [the Word] put on flesh . . . He must be understood to have become flesh in the sense that he comes to be within flesh and is manifested and seen and touched through flesh . . . He is explicitly set before us both as God and as a human being . . . with the different properties of each substance; for ‘Word’ means nothing else than ‘God,’ and ‘flesh’ means nothing else than ‘human being’ . . . What we see here are two ways of being, not compounded but conjoined (non confusum sed coniunctum) in one person, Jesus, who is God and a human being . . . The characteristic property of each substance is preserved in so real a way that the Spirit carried on its own activities in him – that is, powers and works and signs – and at the same time the flesh was involved in passions, hungering in his encounter with Satan, thirsting in his meeting with the Samaritan woman, weeping over Lazarus, disturbed to the point of death, and at length dead.38

The distinction between Christ’s heavenly spirit (the Verbum/Logos) and his human flesh was important for Tertullian because of his commitment to the idea of the immutability of God. For Tertullian, God could not actually become flesh, nor could flesh become God. If either of these transformations were possible, both would cease to be what they are and would become something else, a tertium quid, neither God nor flesh, losing their unique abilities to empower and to suffer. Therefore Tertullian insists that the divine Word “put on” and “dwelt in” human flesh, conjoined but not combined, so that each substance maintained its own properties and functions. In his treatise On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian further describes the important differences between the savior’s human and spiritual natures: 37

Melito, On Pascha 66–67; cf. 100: “The Lord . . . clothed himself with the person (˩ǯǦǷǵ̾ǮǧǯDZȍǶͅǯ˝ǯǪdzǻDzDZǯ) and suffered because of him that was suffering.” 38 Tertullian, Against Praxeas 27, trans. Richard A. Norris, The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 62–64 (modified; CCSL 2:1199–1200).

B. Docetic or Two-Natures Christology?

21

The nature of the two substances showed him as man and God – in one respect born, in the other respect unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceedingly strong; in one sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states – the divine and human – is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit and of the flesh. The powers of the Spirit proved him to be God, his sufferings attested the flesh of man.39

Kelly aptly summarizes the implications of Tertullian’s incarnational theory: “God does not suffer; the Christ-spirit cannot even have ‘suffered with’ (compassus) the flesh.” 40 Nevertheless, Tertullian clearly believed that the sacrifice of Christ’s body was the watershed event for human salvation, both as a sacrificial lamb, and as the Christus Victor, “he who in spiritual armor and as a spiritual warrior is an overthrower of spiritual enemies. . . For when he did battle with the last enemy, which is death, he triumphed by the trophy of the cross.”41 In 325 the council of Nicea established as creed the affirmation that Jesus Christ “descended, was made flesh, became man, and suffered.” Yet the creed does not specify how, as Tertullian asked, the savior became flesh. Although Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, ardently defended this creed, he too maintained the distinction between the divine Logos and the human flesh in which it was ‘clothed.’42 In his treatise On the Incarnation, Athanasius explains that only the savior’s human body suffered and died, while the Logos remained free from harm by virtue of its immortality: For since the Word realized that the corruption of men would not be abolished in any other way except by everyone dying – but the Logos was not able to die (DZǷƃǹDŽ͆ǯǶǧ˻ǯ Ƕͅǯǎ͆ǥDZǯ˙DzDZǪǣǯǧΝǯ), being immortal and the Son of the Father – therefore he took to himself a body which could die (ǦǷǯ̾ǮǧǯDZǯ˙DzDZǪǣǯǧΝǯ˪ǣǷǶκǭǣǮǤ̾ǯǧǫǵιǮǣ), in order that since this participated in the Logos who is above all, it might suffice for death on behalf of all . . . Therefore as an offering and sacrifice free of all spot, he offered to death the body which he had taken to himself. 43

Athanasius interprets the sacrificial death of Jesus in terms of the Christus Victor myth as a victory over death. Like his Alexandrian predecessor Origen, he maintains that Jesus overcame death by offering his body as a sac-

39

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 5, trans. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 525 (modified; CCSL 2:881–882). 40 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 152. For a similar analysis, with discussion of Tertullian’s use of Stoic theories of mixture (Ǭdz΀ǵǫȍ), see Eric Osborn, Tertullian: The First Theologian of the West (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 139–141. 41 Adv. Marc. 4.20, trans. Ernest Evans (Oxford University Press, 1972); cf. Osborn, Tertullian, 18. 42 Athanasius, Contra Arianos 2.69. 43 Athanasius, De incarnatione 9.1–10, ed. and trans. Robert W. Thomson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 152–155.

22

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

rifice to it. 44 Later in the treatise, he repeats the distinction between the immortal Logos and the savior’s suffering body, quoting Hebrews 2:14’s victorious interpretation of the passion: the Logos himself, since he could not die, for he was immortal, took to himself a body which could die in order to offer it as his own on behalf of all, and in order, suffering himself for all men through his coming into it, “to destroy him who held the power of death, that is the devil.” (De incarnatione 20.34; cf. 10.30–40)

As we have seen, many authors who were regarded by later generations as pioneers of Christian orthodoxy maintained that the savior did not really become flesh by transforming into it, but only dwelt in the flesh. Accordingly, only his human body suffered, while his divine being remained free from harm, and conquered over death and the forces of evil. Therefore in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus’ prophecy that “tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured” though “no hand of a dying mortal [will fall] upon me” in no way indicates a docetic Christology or denial of the passion’s redemptive value. The Christology of Judas and other Sethian texts is wholly intelligible in terms of the early Christian doctrine of the two natures. Indeed the Sethian apocalypse Melchizedek asserts one of the most anti-docetic views found anywhere in Christian literature: It will be said of him that “he is unborn,” though he was born; “he does not eat,” though he does eat; “he does not drink,” though he does drink; “he is uncircumcised,” though he was circumcised; “he is without flesh,” though he was in flesh; “he did not come to suffer,” though he did come to suffer; “he did not rise from the dead,” though he did rise from the dead.45

According to Sethian theories of incarnation, the heavenly savior – called Logos, Pronoia, Christ, or Seth – descended into a real earthly person, called the body, flesh, garment, tent, living Jesus, or in the Gospel of Judas, the “person who bears” Jesus. Characterizing this Christology as docetic not only misrepresents its affirmation that the heavenly savior truly came in the flesh, it also obscures the fact that the distinction between the heavenly savior and his body was shared by many Christians who grappled with the difficult problem of explaining how the savior descended, became human, died, and yet lived.

44 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13.8 (Migne, PG 13, 1112b;1116c). Cf. José Montserrat-Torrents, “La cosmologie de l’Évangile de Judas,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 267–276, esp. 269–270. 45 Melchizedek NCH IX 5.2–11 (ed. Birger Pearson); cf. 3.9–11 (though mostly reconstructed): “And [on] the [third] day he [will rise from the] dead.”

C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death

23

C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death The Gospel of Judas refers to the sacrifice of Jesus’ body when Jesus prophesies that Judas Iscariot will sacrifice “the person who bears me”: Truly I say to you, Judas, that those who offer sacrifice to Saklas [. . . (3 lines missing)] every [wicked] thing. But you yourself will do more than all of them; for the person who bears me, you shall sacrifice him. (56.12–21)

How does the Gospel of Judas evaluate the sacrificial death of Jesus? Unfortunately, answers to this question have been intertwined with a quite different one, namely, how this Gospel portrays Judas Iscariot. According to the editors of the initial NGS translation, Judas is Jesus’ most loyal disciple who will “do more” than the other disciples by helping Jesus’ spirit escape his human body and return to heaven. Jesus’ death has no meaning beyond his escape.46 This positive interpretation of Judas Iscariot quickly elicited criticism from other scholars who saw in this Gospel a much more demonic Judas and a wholesale rejection of sacrifice. In their view, Judas will in no way do more than those who sacrifice to Saklas by helping Jesus, but will surpass them in wickedness as the immediate, albeit damaged reference to “every wicked thing” suggests.47 Despite the disagreement over how Judas Iscariot is portrayed, both interpretations regard the sacrificial death of Jesus as meaningless in the Gospel of Judas. Furthermore, many scholars argue that this Gospel pronounces a damning evaluation on the sacrificial death of Jesus in continuity with its harsh critique of the apostolic cult. Earlier in the narrative, the twelve disciples have a dream in which they witness a temple, twelve priests invoking a name over an altar, and a devoted crowd bringing sacrificial animals to be offered. To the Twelve’s dismay, Jesus interprets the dream to signify that they themselves are the priests; the name they are invoking is Jesus’ name; the altar they serve is their false god; and the sacrificial animals are in fact the multitude whom they lead astray. Jesus emphatically condemns the Twelve as wicked priests who offer illicit, even human sacrifices while committing all kinds of gross immoralities. Finally, he commands them to “stop the [sacrifices of animals] . . .” (37.20–41.2). According to Louis Painchaud, Judas has a consistently critical evaluation of sacrifice, especially the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death which lies at the foundation of the apostolic cult:

46

For example, Ehrman, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” 101, 110. April DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 89 emphasizes this interpretation in her translation “you will do worse than all of them,” though the words “do worse” are not in the text and must be inferred. 47

24

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

In the Gospel of Judas, the sacrificial vocabulary ѡѹѵѣёѡѹѵѣёѵљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯѫ, always have a negative connotation . . . This cult is rendered by the apostles to their god (“your god,” 34,10), the god of the Jewish scriptures, assimilated to the archon of this world, Saklas (56,12 –13). Therefore, sacrifices and those who offer sacrifices are interpreted negatively, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that “to sacrifice the man who bears Jesus” should be interpreted positively. 48

Reiterating his view in a later publication, Painchaud firmly states that this “interpretation is the only one possible in the larger context of the Gospel of Judas as a whole, wherein sacrifice is always portrayed negatively.”49 In a similar vein, April DeConick argues that although Jesus’ spirit conquers over the forces of evil by evading suffering, the sacrificial interpretation of his death must be understood negatively.50 In her view, the critical evaluation of sacrifice is not limited to the Gospel of Judas, but characterizes the attitude of Sethian Christians generally: the idea of a Father who required the sacrifice of his own son was “so heinous a crime . . . so immoral, that the Sethian Christians could not stomach it.”51 The sacrifice of Jesus can only be understood as an ineffective sacrifice because Judas Iscariot offers it and the archon Saklas receives it. As I noted above, these interpretations closely intertwine the negative portrayal of Judas Iscariot and the evaluation of Jesus’ sacrifice. According to Painchaud, “In making Judas the person who sacrifices the man who bears Jesus, our text also makes [Judas] the source of the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Jesus and of all the aspects of Christian life by which the archontic domination is perpetuated.”52 Since Judas Iscariot is 48 Louis Painchaud, “À propos,” 557–558: “dans l’Évangile de Judas, le vocabulaire sacrificiel, ѡѹѵѣёѡѹѵѣёѵљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯѫ, a toujours une connotation negative… Ce culte est rendu par les apôtres à leur dieu (« votre dieu » 34,10), le dieu des Écritures juives, assimilé à l’Archonte de ce monde, Saklas (56,12–13). Ainsi, sacrifices et offrande de sacrifices sont interprétés négativement, et il n’y a aucune raison de croire que « sacrificer l’homme qui porte Jésus » doive être interpretété positivement.” See similarly, Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 368: “Wegen der im EvJud durchweg begegnenden negativen Bewertung des Opfers ist es unmöglich, diese Opferaussage positiv zu verstehen. Jesus fordert Judas nicht auf, ihn zu opfern, und es wird auch keine soteriologische Bewertung des Todes Jesu erkennbar.” 49 Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 183. 50 DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 42; cf. 127–130. DeConick bases her interpretation of Judas primarily on the soteriological drama in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2, which despite its title, is not a Sethian text). According to her interpretation, the archons wanted to kill Jesus as a counter-move in their war with the supreme God. The wicked Judas collaborated with the archons, and handed over Jesus for crucifixion. Their plan failed, however, because the archons could not detain Jesus’ spirit. Instead, it ascended to heaven, “carving out a path to the Upper Kingdom and conquering the Archons along the way.” 51 DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 131; cf. 57–59; 138–139. 52 Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 178.

C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death

25

criticized for sacrificing Jesus, the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death is equally criticized. There can be no doubt that the Gospel of Judas condemns the apostolic cult represented by the twelve disciples and their followers. What is less clear, however, is that that it regards the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death as so abhorrent.53 In all of its fierce polemic Judas never denies that Jesus died as a sacrifice, nor does it criticize the disciples or their followers for interpreting it as such. In fact, Judas’s Jesus never raises issues about faulty interpretations of his death. It is important to maintain a distinction between this Gospel’s attitude toward the sacrificial death of Jesus and its portrayal of Judas Iscariot. The two issues are not the same, nor are they necessarily interrelated. Even if Judas Iscariot exceeds the other disciples in wickedness by sacrificing Jesus, the criticism would be directed at Judas himself, and not at the value of the sacrifice. The canonical Gospels maintain the same distinction between Judas’s villainous act and the important role it played in salvation history: “For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed” (Luke 22:22). In the New Testament narratives, Judas betrays Jesus out of jealousy, envy, greed, even satanic possession, yet his actions nevertheless have positive implications for the salvation of humanity. A criticism of Judas for sacrificing Jesus does not, therefore, amount to a criticism of the sacrifice or its redemptive power. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that Judas’s criticism of the apostolic cult equally applies to its sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death. Early Christians, including Sethian Christians, did not evaluate all forms of sacrifice equally, but held complex and ambivalent attitudes toward different kinds of offerings. Many Christians advocated a supersessionist ideology that regarded animal sacrifices offered by Jews and pagans as ineffective. Yet simultaneously, they promoted the sacrifice of Jesus as the truly effective offering which liberated humanity from Death, Sin, and demonic oppression.54 I suggest that the Gospel of Judas’s attitude toward sacrifice 53 See similarly, Antti Marjanen, “Does the Gospel of Judas Rehabilitate Judas Iscariot?” in Gelitten, Gestorben, Auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum, ed. Tobias Nicklas et al. (Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 213n13: “the interpretation . . . according to which the polemical view of sacrifice broached in the Gospel of Judas is directed against the idea of the sacrificial death of Jesus, is not probable.” 54 For classic examples of Christian supersessionist ideology, see Hebrews 7:27, 9:11–28, 10:11–13; Epistle of Barnabas 2 and 7; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 40; Melito, Paschal Homily 5 and 44. For discussion see Frances M. Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrystostom (Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1979); eadem, Sacrifice and the Death of Christ (London: SPCK, 1975), esp. 64: “Christians rejected sacrifice and proclaimed a purely spiritual cult . . . This led to the conclusion that the really distinctive feature of the

26

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

reflects the same ambivalence. By drawing on a well established supersessionist rhetoric, Judas demonizes the apostolic cult through the imagery of animal sacrifices, yet understands Jesus’ sacrifice as the offering which liberated humanity from the powers of evil. One finds precisely this supersessionist ambivalence toward sacrifice at the center of another Sethian Christian text, the very fragmentary apocalypse of Melchizedek (NHC IX,1).55 On the one hand, Melchizedek seems critical of animal sacrifices because “they do not reach the Father of the All” (6.28–7.5). On the other hand, it simultaneously evaluates Jesus’ selfsacrifice in a positive way: Jesus, whom the text identifies as the legendary priest Melchizedek, “[included] himself [in the] living offering” and then “offered them up as an [offering] to the All” (6.24–28). Jesus then proclaims that “I have offered up myself to you as an offering, together with those that are mine, to you yourself, Father of the All.”56 By doing so, his sacrificial death effects salvation in a way that animal sacrifices could not. Melchizedek demonstrates that not all Sethian Christians shunned the very idea of sacrifice or the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death.57 I suggest that the Gospel of Judas’s attitude toward the sacrificial death of Jesus may be closer to the positive interpretation found in Melchizedek. There is no reason to assume that its author evaluated all forms of sacrifice with equal disdain. Indeed, a number of Sethian writings find positive soteriological meaning in the death of Jesus according to the popular Christus Victor mythology that I discussed above. The apocalypse of Melchizedek, the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, and the Gospel of Judas all interpret the death Christian spiritual cult was the death of Christ, the one and only sacrifice for sin and the inspiration of all other sacrifices inspired by Christians.” Of course Christians did not reject sacrifice, but rather reinterpreted its meaning, often into various forms of worship (Eucharist, thanksgiving praise) or action (martyrdom, moral conduct), as did their Jewish contemporaries. See Guy Stroumsa, La fin du sacrifice: Les mutations religieuses de l’Antiquité tardives (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2005), 115–116. 55 Birger Pearson, Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 34–35. 56 Melchizedek NHC IX 16.7–9. The preceding lines are very fragmentary, but may imply a contrast between the sacrifices offered to Death and the “living offering” offered by Melchizedek. 57 Some scholars regard Melchizedek as somewhat “less Sethian” than other tractates in the Sethian corpus, such as the Apocryphon of John and Holy Book, and speak of it as a Sethian text which has been heavily “Christianized,” or conversely, as an “essentially” Christian text which has been secondarily “Sethianized.” Although I would stress the purely hypothetical nature of such redactional theories, and the methodological problems involved in speaking about texts in terms of a Christian or Sethian “essence,” I am less concerned here with the degree to which Melchizedek is or is not a Sethian treatise. My point is that within the Sethian corpus as it is usually defined, one finds a more complex evaluation of sacrifices than scholarship on the Gospel of Judas has acknowledged.

C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death

27

of Jesus as a moment of victory over the world ruler, his law, and demonic powers. Melchizedek begins with a prophecy that “Death will [tremble] and be angry, not only he himself, but also his [fellow] world-ruling archons [and] the principalities and the authorities . . . together with the archangels” (2.5–11). Then after describing how Jesus offered himself to the Father as a “living offering,” and detailing a baptismal hymn to various members of the Sethian pantheon (16.11–18.7), its conclusion affirms that the demonic opponents of Jesus “did not prevailed over” him but rather that he “destroyed his enemies” (26.2–9). Like Melchizedek, the Sethian baptismal catechism entitled the Holy Book of the Great Inivisible Spirit (sometimes called the “Gospel of the Egyptians”) also interprets Jesus’ death and the baptism he established as a victory over the power of demons and death. It teaches the baptismal initiate that the heavenly savior, the Great Seth, descended into “a logosbegotten body,” which is “the living Jesus whom the Great Seth put on.” Seth-Jesus brought to an end the ‘decree’ (țёѱ) of the chief archon by winning a victory on the cross: “through him (i.e. the living Jesus), he nailed the powers of the thirteen aeons” and “crucified what is in the Law.”58 As scholars have observed, the Holy Book’s mythological interpretation of the crucifixion as a victory over demonic authorities and the Law resonates with the Pauline letter to the Colossians: when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it (2:13–15 NRSV).

According to the Holy Book, Seth-Jesus’ crucifixion nailed the demons to the cross and crucified “what is in the Law.” Salvation from demonic oppression comes first through Seth-Jesus’ victory on the cross, and then by ritual purification in baptism. The Holy Book teaches that when one receives the baptism established by the savior, he receives the “the incense of life” mixed with water, and “will by no means taste death” (NHC III 67.22–24; 66.1–8).59

58

Holy Book NHC III 63.4–64.4; cf. 65.17–18. The Trimorphic Protennoia similarly speaks of the end of the world ruler’s ‘decree’ (NHC XIII 49.12–14). Compare Apoc. Adam NHC V 77.1–3: when the Illuminator passes by a third time, he will perform “signs and wonders in order to scorn the powers and their ruler.” 59 For a fuller treatment of the Holy Book’s soteriology, with attention to its interpretation of the crucifixion and ritual baptism, see Michael A. Williams, The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 146–149.

28

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

The Gospel of Judas’s interpretation of the death of Jesus can be seen in a similar light, as a mythological victory over the demonic world ruler. Its final eschatological prophecy comes toward the end of the Gospel (pp. 56– 57), when Jesus explains to Judas his role in the drama: “the person who bears me, you shall sacrifice him. Already your horn is raised, your anger is kindled, your star has passed over, and your heart has [strayed]” (56.20– 25). Regarding this prophecy, Stephen Emmel asks: “Does Jesus’ death make any difference at all in the view of the author of this gospel?” Emmel’s answer is basically no: “It seems to me that the only person to whom the chain of events beginning with the betrayal is of any real significance in the Gospel of Judas is Judas himself. And it is significant to him because he is going to be cursed as a result of his action.”60 But it is the narrow focus on the figure of Judas Iscariot that obscured the full “chain of events beginning with the betrayal.” When one reads the passage in context, with the eschatological prophecies which immediately follow, the “chain of events” begins with Jesus predicting his sacrificial death, and ends with the destruction of the world ruler and the exaltation of Adam’s great race: [. . . the thrones] of the realm have been [defeated]; the kings have become weak; the races of the angels have mourned; the wickedness they [sowed . . .] is obliterated; [and] the ruler is wiped out. [And] then the [fruit] of the great race of Adam shall be exalted. . . (56.20–12)

Judas Iscariot is clearly not the only one for whom Jesus’ sacrifice has significance in this Gospel. Its prophecies about the toppling of thrones and the humbling of kings draws from ancient apocalyptic tropes which employ descriptions of chaos (Chaosbeschreibung), often reversals of the regular social order, to describe monumental events.61 In Enoch’s Book of Parables, for example, after the Son of Man is enthroned in his glory, “the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth will fall on their faces in his presence” (1 Enoch 62:9–12). The lamentation of angels over the arrival of the savior is also found in other Sethian writings. The Hypostasis of the Archons predicts that when the savior frees people 60 Stephen Emmel, “The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 36–39. 61 See, for example, Zechariah 12:10–14; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 18:9–19 and 19:19–21. On Chaosbeschreibung, see Jan Assmann, “Königsdogma und Heilserwartung. Politische und kultische Chaosbeschreibungen in ägyptischen Texten,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. David Hellholm (2nd edition; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), 345–377; Samuel K. Eddy, The King is Dead (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961); David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 183–185.

C. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Death

29

from demonic clutches by providing them with the spirit of truth and unction of life, “then the authorities will relinquish their seasons; and their angels will weep over their destruction; and their demons will lament their death.”62 Furthermore, Judas’s description of how the wickedness of the angels and the world ruler himself are “wiped out” may allude to Collosians 2:14, which describes Jesus’ victory over demonic powers on the cross and how he “wiped away the deed of debt that opposed us with its dogmas” (˩ǰǣǭǧ̈́ǺǣǴǶͅǬǣǪϋ˶Ǯιǯǹǧǫdz͆ǥdzǣǸDZǯǶDZΝǴǦ͆ǥǮǣǵǫǯ). Although we do not know Judas’s original Greek text, the Sahidic translation of Colossians uses the same verb as Judas (ȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ) to describe the obliteration. The demise of the world ruler in this passage fulfills the eschatological prophecies found elsewhere in the Gospel of Judas. Earlier in the dialogue, Jesus predicts that “on the last day” the Lord of the Universe shall put evil doers to shame (40.23–26); that Saklas shall come to the end of his “appointed” time (54.18–21); and that the wandering stars shall be destroyed along with their creations (55.15–20). Judas even hints at this impending judgment upon demons and the unrighteous in its incipit: “the secret discourse of the proclamation (ёѱѯѻёѵѣѵ) in which Jesus spoke with Judas Iscariot during eight days prior to the three days before he kept Passover (ѳŶѱёѵѽё)” (33.1–6). As scholars have observed, ёѱѯѻёѵѣѵ frequently has the legal meaning of a ‘judgment’ or ‘sentence.’63 Read this way, Judas announces its apocalyptic judgment on demons and sinners right from the beginning. Moreover, the term ѳŶѱёѵѽё can be understood as a double entendre referring to both the Passover festival (Dz̾ǵǹǣ) and Jesus’ passion (Dz̾ǵǹǧǫǯ), just as the canonical Gospels interrelate the Passover and Jesus’ death (e.g., John 19:31–37). If ѳŶѱёѵѽё is understood as a reference to the suffering of Jesus, then Judas’s entire dialogue would be set in an inclusio beginning and ending with references to his passion and judgment upon the world ruler (33.5–6; 56.19–20). In the previous sections I have argued that the Gospel of Judas assumes a two-natures Christology, and thus cannot accurately be described as docetic. Like the Sethian treatises Melchizedek and the Holy Book, it interprets the death of Jesus as an apocalyptic event which triumphed over demonic powers and allowed for the great race of Adam to be exalted. In the 62 Hyp. Arch. NHC II 97.10–13. A similar lamentation of evil powers appears in the eschatology of the Trim. Prot. NHC XIII 43–44. See also Harold Attridge, “Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 173– 211, esp. 189–198. 63 André Gagné, “A Critical Note on the Meaning of APOPHASIS in Gospel of Judas 33:1,” Laval théologique et philosophique 63 (2007): 377–383; cf. Schenke Robinson, “Protagonist,” 76–78.

30

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

next section, I analyze how Judas interprets ritual baptism in the name of Jesus as a means for members of the human races to participate in this victory.

D. Baptism as Reenactment of Christus Victor As we have seen, Jesus’ sacrificial death brings destruction to the worldruler. But how can people participate in its victorious effects? Although the Gospel of Judas is not altogether clear on this point, I suggest that the answer lies in ritual baptism, as it did for so many followers of Jesus.64 That is, people can participate in the new era of freedom from demonic power initiated by Jesus’ death by receiving baptism in his name. In Judas, the key passage concerning baptism appears just before Jesus predicts that Judas will sacrifice him. At this point in the dialogue, Judas has been asking Jesus a series of questions about the fate of humanity, to which Jesus responds by explaining how malicious astrological powers exert influence over them and lead them into sin and error (54.13–55.22). Judas then asks, “What, then, will those who were baptized in your name do?” (55.23–25). Until recently, Jesus’ answer was lost in a lacuna at the top of page 56, leading different interpreters to propose quite polarized hypotheses as to what Jesus says about baptism. On the one hand, many argued that Jesus probably condemns baptism in his name as yet another ritual institution of the apostolic church.65 On the other hand, Elaine Pagels suggested that Jesus promotes baptism in his name as a means of ritual salvation.66 Indeed, as we saw with the Holy Book above, baptism plays an important role in the soteriologies of other Sethian texts.67 64

That baptism was the central means through which most Christians believed they could participate in the liberating effects of Jesus’ death hardly needs to be documented. Compare, for example, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 5–6. For the most recent and comprehensive treatment of early Christian baptism, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Cambridge, UK; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). 65 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 367; Bas van Os, “Stop Sacrificing! The Metaphor of Sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas,” in Codex Judas Papers, 367–386; Schenke Robinson, “Relationship,” 69; cf. Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius, Book I (Sects 1–46) (2 nd edition; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 285n7. 66 Elaine Pagels, “Baptism in the Gospel of Judas: A Preliminary Inquiry,” in Codex Judas Papers, 353–366. Philippa Townsend proposed a similar interpretation in her paper “What is this Great Race? The Meaning of Genea in the Gospel of Judas” delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA, 2007. 67 See Jean-Marie Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal Séthien: Études sur la sacramentair gnostique (Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986); John D. Turner, “The Sethian Baptismal Rite,” in Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica:Pplanges offerts jWolf-Peter Funk,

D. Baptism as Reenactment of Christus Victor

31

Now, however, a fragment of page 56 from Codex Tchacos recovered from a private collection in Ohio in 2009 illuminates what Jesus says about baptism, though as one might expect it also creates further interpretive challenges. Jesus says that baptism in his name “will wipe out the entire race of earthly Adam (ȗƉѫƉёƉȗҁƉ>ѷ@љƉ љѓѯѧ ѫŶѷѕљѫƉљё ѷџѳƩѵ ѫёƩїƉƩ>ƩёƩ@ѩŶ ѱѳѩѩѥёƩț 56.4–6).68 But what does this mean? At first sight, this baptism sounds rather destructive. Like the great Flood, it wipes out the entire race (ѕљѫљё) of earthly Adam. Is it, then, as many interpreters anticipated, a criticism of baptism practiced in the apostolic churches – one that intends to highlight its destructive rather than soteriological effects? Does “all the race of earthly Adam” refer to the human races that one hears so much about in the Gospel of Judas? I suggest that we interpret “the race of earthly Adam” not as a reference to the human races, but to the physical bodies of humanity, the part subject to the astrological powers that Jesus just described in the previous lines. Had the author of Judas wanted to refer to the human races, he could have used the same term he used so frequently elsewhere (ѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶѫѳҁѩљ). Instead, he refers more enigmatically to “all the race of earthly Adam” (ѫŶѷѕљѫƉљёѷџѳƩѵѫёƩїƉƩ>ƩёƩ@ѩŶ ѱѳѩѩѥёƩț). Judas’s language in this passage resonates with Philo’s exegesis of the two creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. According to Philo, God made “two races of humanity; there is the heavenly person, and the earthly” (ǦǫǶǶ̽ ǣƃǯǪdzȀDzǻǯ ǥǧŲǯǩy ̖ Ǯ̿ǯ ǥ̾dz ˩ǵǶǫǯDZ̡dz̾ǯǫDZȍ˝ǯǪdzǻDzDZȍ̖Ǧ̿ǥ͂ǼǯDZȍ). First he created the ‘heavenly’ Adam in Genesis 1:26–27 and then fashioned (˭Dzǭǣǵǧǯ) the ‘earthly’ Adam in Genesis 2:7. 69 Philo’s two races do not correspond to different groups of people, but represent discrete components of the com-posite human being: the ‘heavenly’ person corresponds to the incorporeal mind, while the ‘earthly’ person corresponds to the physical body. Accord-ing to Philo, the former “has no share in terrestrial substance (ǥǧȀǦDZǷȍDZǷƃǵ̈́ǣȍ); but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls clay.” Therefore when Jesus says that baptism in his name “will wipe away all the genea of earthly Adam,” I undestand him to mean that baptism nullifies the initiate’s physical body. Indeed, according to Judas’s mythology, the physical bodies of earthly Adam and Eve were fashioned (ѱѧёѵѵё) by ed. Louis Painchaud and P.-H. Poirier (Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006), 941–992. 68 I read the antecedent of ȗƉѫƉёƉȗҁƉ>ѷ@љ as baptism (ȝҁѥƩѩ) on 55.27. It is possible, however, that it refers to some other subject now lost in the 3 missing lines at the top of page 56. 69 Philo, Allegorical Interpretation I 31 (LCL). See similarly, On the Creation 134; Questions and Anwers on Genesis 4 and 19.

32

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

the creator god and his angels (52.14–19; cf. Genesis 2:7). By wiping away the baptizant’s physical body, baptism in the name of Jesus frees him or her from the clutches of demonic forces. Early Christians frequently interpreted baptism as an exorcism from the hold of demonic forces over their bodies.70 The idea that baptism frees one from the cosmic powers of Sin and Death appears already in Paul’s letter to the Romans (5:12–6:14), where he says that by having been baptized into the death of Jesus “our old person (̖Dzǣǭǣǫͅȍ˶Ǯιǯ˝ǯǪdzǻDzDZȍ) was crucified with him so that the body of sin (ǶͅǵιǮǣ˚ǮǣdzǶ̈́ǣȍ) might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (6:6). In Paul’s own interpretation of Genesis, people inherit “the old person,” “the body of sin,” from the transgression of Adam (Romans 5:12–21); but all those who receive baptism have put off Adam’s sinful body, and have “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27). The author of Judas also appears to associate baptism with Jesus’ passion. For just after Jesus says that baptism in his name wipes away “all the genea of earthly Adam,” he immediately begins to speak about his impending passion: “Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured. Yet indeed I [say] to you, no hand of a dying mortal [will fall] upon me” (56.6–11). Jesus evidently refers to the complex nature of his own suffering to illustrate how through baptism the ‘earthly’ person is destroyed, while the spiritual person remains free from harm. Furthermore, with the specific vocabulary of ‘wiping away,’ the author of Judas creates a conceptual association between baptism and the victorious effects of Jesus’ death. Just as the death of Jesus’ body literally ‘wipes away’ (ȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ 57.10) the demonic world ruler, baptism in the name of Jesus ‘wipes away’ (ȗҁƉ>ѷ@љƉљѓѯѧ 56.5) the bodies of earthly humanity, leaving the baptizant’s spiritual person free from demonic domination. With the “the race of earthly Adam” wiped away, the spiritual persons who remain presumably correspond to the “great race of Adam” that shall be exalted. I now turn to an analysis of this climactic prophecy.

70

See the classic study of baptismal exorcism by Franz Joseph Dölger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1909). For more recent studies, see Otto Böcher, Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970); idem, Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1972). For ancient examples, see Colossians 2:11–15; Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts of Theodotus 76–78; Tertullian, On Baptism 9.9; Origen, Homily on Exodus 5.4–5, where the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea in flight from the Egyptians points allegorically to the Christian baptizant’s liberation from the evil ‘rulers of this world.’ Cf. Ferguson, Baptism, 158–159 (Colossians); 309–316 (Clement of Alexandria); 415, 423–424 (Origen).

E. The Exaltation of Adam’s Great Race

33

E. The Exaltation of Adam’s Great Race The Gospel of Judas does not dwell at great length on descriptions of human salvation, at least not in the way other writings in the Sethian corpus, such as the Apocryphon of John, describe the ascent of different kinds of souls to various strata of the heavens.71 Yet as we have seen, Jesus’ final prophecy predicts the salvation of at least some part of humanity: “[And] then the [fruit] ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ) of the great race of Adam shall be exalted, because prior to heaven and earth and the angels, that race exists throughout the realms” (57.8–14). The lacuna in this passage is a noteworthy point of discussion. The editors of the Critical Edition reconstruct the partially visible word at 57.10 as ѱƉѷƉ>ѹ@ѱѯѵ, and translate, “[And] then will the image of the great race of Adam be exalted.”72 But what would the ‘image’ of Adam’s great race mean? Brankaer and Bethge suggest that it pertains to the image after which humanity was created, that is, the image of heavenly Adamas himself or the heavenly race of Seth: The eschatological vision in EvJud ends with this short episode. The last pronouncement concerns the typos of the great race of Adam. We understand the word here not in its spatial, but rather qualitative sense. Here, it deals with the pleromatic model of Adam’s race, after whose image it was created. In this sense, the race of Adam is preexistent. Accordingly, Adamas can be thought of first, but also the race of Seth. Both exist in the great Aeon.73

If, then, we accept the reconstruction ѱƉѷƉ>ѹ@ѱѯѵ, the passage likely means that the earthly copies of Adam’s great race shall be exalted, perhaps indicating the unification of the earthly image with its heavenly archetype (as in some Valentinian soteriologies). 74 But the meaning remains obscure, especially because the term typos appears no where else in Judas.

71

Ap. John NHC II 9.14–23; 26.22–27.30. Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 284 evidently follow the NGS transcript, and translate “[Und] dann wird das Vorbild des groȕen Geschlechts Adams erhaben sein.” Neither edition marks the reconstruction in brackets. Based on the NGS transcript, April DeConick translates “And then the model of the great generation of Adam will be exalted” (Thirteenth Apostle, 90). Simon Gathercole smoothes out the passage by interpreting it to mean that the great race of Adam will be exalted “with its divine image” (Gospel of Judas, 106–107). Alternatively, the NGS editors (Gospel of Judas, 43n140) suggest the reconstruction ѱƉѷƉ>ѯ@ѱѯѵ, ‘the place’ of Adam’s great race. Pagels and King follow this reconstruction in their translation (Reading Judas, 185). 73 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 369–370 (translation mine). 74 On the Valentinian idea of a soteriological union, or ‘marriage,’ between the self and one’s angel (a heavenly double), see Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians” (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 325–326. 72

34

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

I suggest, however, that ѱƉѷƉ>ѹ@ѱѯѵ is not a good reconstruction of this lacuna. A close examination of the manuscript photograph reveals only the characters ѱƉ>@ѱѯѵ, with space in the lacuna for three characters. There is no trace of a partially visible ѷ after the first ѱ, as transcribed in the Critical Edition; in fact, only the left-hand side of ѱ is visible. As an alternative, I propose the reconstruction ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ: “[And] then the [fruit] of the great race of Adam shall be exalted.” Jesus frequently uses the metaphor of ‘fruit’ (ѥёѳѱѯѵ) elsewhere in the Gospel of Judas (39.16; 43.13; 44.2; 43.3?; 43.7?), whereas the word ѷѹѱѯѵ never occurs. The idea that the ‘fruit’ of Adam’s great race shall be exalted would fit nicely here since Jesus associates fruit with heavenly ascent earlier in the dialogue. When Judas asks Jesus what ‘fruit’ the undefiled race possesses, Jesus responds by explaining that while their bodies shall perish, their souls will live on and be ‘taken up.’ In contrast, when Judas asks about “the rest of the human races,” Jesus continues with an agricultural simile that compares the human races to rock unfit for cultivation: “it is impossible to sow upon a [rock] so that their [fruit] (>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ) may be harvested” (43.12–44.2). That is, it is impossible to gather the souls of the human races so that they too can be ‘taken up’ with the holy race (44.2–7). Who then belongs to “the [fruit] of Adam’s great race”? The fruit evidently refers to members of the human races who joined the holy race through ritual baptism. Other Sethian texts use the same metaphor to describe converts to the race of Seth. The Holy Book speaks of “the great, incorruptible race, its fruit (ѥёѳѱѯѵ), and the great men of the great Seth.”75 In the Apocalypse of Adam, when the illuminating savior appears, he leaves behind “fruit-bearing trees” to spread his message. 76 In Judas, then, the fruit of Adam’s great race represents a ‘harvest’ of evangelical ‘sowing,’ that is, people whom the Sethians won over by their proselytizing efforts. On the other hand, those who refuse to accept the truth and join the movement are, as Jesus explained, like rock upon which seed cannot be sown. Since their fruit cannot be harvested, they will not be taken up with the holy race.77

75

Holy Book NHC III 62.14–24 = IV 73.27–29. Apoc. Adam NHC V 76.14–15. For discussion, see Charles W. Hedrick, Apocalypse of Adam. SBL Dissertation Series 46 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 125. 77 On sociological dimensions of Sethian proselytizing, see Williams, Immovable Race, 190–197. In antiquity it was not unheard of for people to undergo a “race change” so to say, that is, to take on the lifestyle of another ethnicity (hence the neologisms ˪ǭǭǩǯ̈́ǨǧǫǯDQG̅DZǷǦǣΜǨǧǫǯ) or to represent themselves as a new race of people. On the flexibility of ethnic identities among ancient Christians, see Denise Kimber Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). 76

E. The Exaltation of Adam’s Great Race

35

Finally, the Gospel of Judas provides a glimpse of the place to which the holy race will ultimately ascend. In Judas Iscariot’s dream he sees a magnificent house, the enormous size of which his eyes cannot measure. The house is surrounded by great people, and adorned with a spectacular “roof of lightning.” Jesus explains to Judas that this is the realm “reserved for the holy ones,” that is, for members of the holy race, who shall “always stand (ҁțƩљѳёѷѯѹ) in this realm with the holy angels” (45.1–24). As I have suggested elsewhere, Judas’s description of the house, its inhabitants, and its architecture seems to be conversant with Enoch’s vision of God’s heavenly temple in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 14).78 Judas’ description of the holy ones ‘standing’ in the heavenly realm draws on a popular soteriological theme in antiquity. As Michael Williams has shown, the idea of transcendental standing is found widely among Platonic, Jewish, and Christian authors to characterize the highest levels of existence.79 In the Platonic tradition, ‘standing’ at the summit of reality characterizes the state of being at rest in the world of intellect, whereas movement characterizes existence in the world of sense perceptions. Williams suggests that the Platonic connotation of rest associated with transcendental standing may have been adopted by some Sethians, like the author of Zostrianos. However, Judas’s description of the holy ones standing specifically “with the holy angels” appears to be more closely related to the theme of standing in Jewish and Christian apocalypses. According to Williams, in the apocalyptic tradition “the ‘standing’ of a seer is a way of indicating the assimilation of the seer to the condition of angels.”80 So too in Judas, members of the holy race become like the angels by standing with them in the heavenly realm. Yet the notion that the holy ones stand in a state of rest, free from the movements of astrological powers and the measures of time, also seems implied, for Jesus explains that this is “the place where neither the sun nor moon nor day will rule” (45.20–21). Thus when the souls of the holy race are taken up, and the ‘fruit’ of Adam’s great race is exalted, they will transcend the astrological influences which in this Gospel, as in other apocalypses, are associated with demonic powers, and stand with the angels in the holy realm for eternity.

78

Lance Jenott, “The Gospel of Judas 45,6–7 and Enoch’s Heavenly Temple,” Codex Judas Papers, 471–477; see also the note on this passage in Appendix B. 79 Williams, Immovable Race, 74–85. 80 Williams, Immovable Race, 84.

36

Chapter 1: Jesus’ Sacrifice ‘for the Salvation of Humanity’

F. Conclusion According to patristic testimonies, ancient Christians who read a Gospel of Judas thought that Jesus’ death brought salvation to humanity by conquering the cosmic forces of evil. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon complains that “they say everything terrestrial and celestial was destroyed” (et terrena et caelestia omnia dissoluta dicunt) when Judas accomplished the mystery of the betrayal (Adv. haer. 1.31.1). About two centuries later, Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis says that those who read Judas believed that demons tried to prevent Christ’s passion because they knew that it would lead to their destruction and the salvation of the human race (Panarion, 38.1.2– 5; 38.3.1–5). Some scholars, however, maintain that our Gospel of Judas tells the opposite story: that Judas and the demons conspired to kill Jesus and that his death has no value for salvation.81 According to this view, Judas is a Gnostic Gospel that assumes a docetic Christology. Because Jesus did not truly suffer, his sacrifice is meaningless for the salvation of humanity. The author of Judas wrote his Gospel to condemn Judas Iscariot (did Luke, John, and Papias not demonize him enough?), and to criticize ‘orthodox’ Christians who ignorantly put their faith in the salvific power of Jesus’ death. In this chapter I have argued that our Gospel of Judas interprets the sacrificial death of Jesus in a positive way that happens to reconcile with the testimonies of the indignant Bishops. Far from advocating a docetic Christology that denies the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering, our Judas assumes what many Christians did, that Jesus had two natures, divine and human, and that the suffering of his human nature alone effected salvation. Our Judas interprets Jesus’ passion in terms of a soteriology popular among ancient Christians – including New Testament and patristic authors – the soteriology of Christus Victor. This interpretation understands Jesus’ sacrificial death as a moment of deliverance from oppressive thrones, kings, wicked angels, the world ruler, and the fate of death. Following Paul’s theology of baptism as an exorcism from sin and death, Judas assumes that those who receive baptism in the name of Jesus can also participate in this liberating victory. If, then, this Gospel does not criticize the sacrificial theology of Jesus’ death, why is its author so angry? Why does he portray the twelve disciples so unfavorably? It is to this topic that I turn in Chapter 2.

81

See, for example, DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 174–177.

Chapter 2

The Twelve Disciples A. Introduction Interest in the Gospel of Judas has focused intensely on the figure of Judas Iscariot and the question over whether this Gospel portrays him as a good or bad disciple. Such interest in the figure of Judas is of course understandable given his role as the arch villain of the Christian tradition who betrayed Jesus, and yet ironically, precipitated the salvation of humanity. It is indeed fascinating to find a ‘new’ ancient gospel that bears the traitor’s name and tells previously unknown stories about Jesus and his inner circle in the days just before he was crucified. Yet the fascination with the figure of Judas Iscariot in this Gospel neglects the author’s own preoccupation with the other disciples. The historical value of this Gospel lies not in what it says about the character of Judas Iscariot, but in what its negative portrayal of the twelve disciples reveals about controversies over ecclesiastical leadership among Christians in the second century. These conflicts arose from questions about whom Jesus had appointed as leaders in the churches, who faithfully transmitted his teachings, who held the authority to convene church meetings, conduct the liturgy, and administer the Eucharist. The legitimacy of the twelve disciples became a site of contention when they were intimately linked with the foundations of ecclesiastical leadership. Although many Christians maintained that Jesus had appointed the Twelve as leaders of the church after his earthly ministry, there were dissenting voices. In this chapter, I analyze two scenes of the Gospel of Judas which offer a fierce criticism of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The first scene occurs near the beginning of the Gospel, where Jesus encounters the Twelve performing a ritual ‘thanksgiving’ (eucharistia). Jesus attempts to correct their theological and ritual improprieties by telling them that they are serving the wrong god against their will. Yet instead of heeding their master’s teaching, they become bitterly angry at Jesus and blaspheme him. When Jesus challenges them to demonstrate strength and spiritual maturity, they boast in their ability to do so, but immediately fail. In the second scene, the twelve disciples tell Jesus about a troubling dream they had the night before. They see twelve priests in a temple offer-

38

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

ing bloody sacrifice over an altar while a devout crowd stands by. When Jesus asks about the priests, the disciples describe them as thoroughly wicked, committing all kinds of foul sins and crimes, including human sacrifice and murder. Jesus then offers them a shocking interpretation: the wicked priests are the disciples themselves; the altar is their false god; and the animals they offer in bloody sacrifice are the multitude they lead astray. Jesus then follows with a damning prophecy about the future iniquity of the disciples’ cult, promising that on the last day they will be “put to shame.” What did the author of Judas hope to achieve by this portrayal of the Twelve? What is the target of his criticism? Although all scholars have been struck by Judas’s rich imagery of Eucharist and sacrifice, there is no consensus as to what it represents. Because many early Christians interpreted the Eucharist as a sacrifice which reenacted Jesus’ death, some scholars maintain that the author of Judas wrote to condemn the Eucharist per se.1 According to Frank Williams, Judas “is the earliest work we know to mount an attack on the eucharist as such, not an attack which disputes its meaning or the manner of its celebration, but one which insists that it should not be celebrated at all.”2 Others, including myself, have suggested that the sacrificial imagery, especially the accusation of human sacrifice, targets martyrdom, since many Christians interpreted martyrdom as a sacrifice.3 Yet others suggest that Judas criticizes baptism.4 1

On the interpretation of Eucharist as sacrifice, see Robert Daly, The Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), passim, esp. 498–508; Frances M. Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1979), passim, esp. 239–284; Guy Stroumsa, The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity, trans. Susan Emanuel (University of Chicago Press, 1999), 56–78. 2 Frank Williams, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, its Exegesis, and its Place in Church History,” Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008), 372. Williams continues (373n4), “Gos. Judas’ condemnation of the rite is so sweeping that one doubts whether its authors would have accepted the rite in any form.” Cf. Simon Gathercole, Gospel of Judas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 77. 3 See Philippa Townsend, Eduard Irichinshi, Lance Jenott, “The Betrayer’s Gospel,” in The New York Review of Books, vol. 53 (10) June 8, 2006: 32–37; Elaine Pagels and Karen King, Reading Judas (New York: Viking, 2007), 59–75. On the interpretation of martyrdom as sacrifice, see Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 320; 378–383; 479–480; Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 129–136; 223–238; Elizabeth A. Castelli, Memory and Martyrdom (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 33–68; George Heyman, The Power of Sacrifice: Roman & Christian Discourses in Conflict (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 161–218; Stroumsa, End of Sacrifice, 72–78. 4 Bas van Os, “Stop Sacrificing! The Metaphor of Sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas,” in Codex Judas Papers, ed. April DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 367–386.

A. Introduction

39

Louis Painchaud offers a cautious interpretation, which aptly differentiates between criticism of the Eucharist per se and criticism of a specific form of Eucharist: “it was neither the rite nor the way it was conducted” that the author of Judas criticized, but rather “the fact that it is the disciples’ god that is praised through this rite, and not the father of Jesus.” 5 That the wrong god is praised by the disciples’ Eucharist is clearly the cenrtal theological problem for the author of Judas. Yet Painchaud and other interpreters go on to assert that the author of Judas was also critical of the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Painchaud sees it at the center of the controversy: “this polemic is primarily aimed at the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ and the eucharist, but this does not exclude the possibility that it is also aimed at the ideology of martyrdom which was coming into being at this time.”6 Accordingly, Judas criticizes all practices of the Christian life interpreted as sacrifice: “the sacrificial interpretation of Christianity, what one might call the theology or ideology of sacrifice seen as the perpetuation of the temple cult.”7 However, as I argued in Chapter 1, the Gospel of Judas and other Sethian Christian texts such as the Holy Book and Melchizedek do not criticize the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death. Instead, they find positive redemptive power in the crucifixion as a victory over demonic powers which allows the great race of Adam to be exalted. If, then, the sacrificial theology of the apostolic church is not the target of Judas’s criticism, what is? Why does Jesus laugh when he sees his disciples performing their Eucharist, and why does he identify them as wicked priests who lead a multitude astray?

5

Louis Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects of the Gospel of Judas,” in The Gospel of Judas in Context, ed. Madeleine Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 171–186, citation from 175; cf. 172–173. He observes that “this confirms Sevrin’s conclusion (Le dossier baptismal, pp. 3–4 and note 8) that the ritual practices of Christian Gnostics did not differ from those of the non-Gnostics in their execution, but only in their interpretation” (175n18). 6 Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 184. Cf. Painchaud, “À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,” Laval théologique et philosophique 62.3 (2006): 553–568, esp. 566–567; April DeConick, The Thriteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (New York: Continuum, 2007), 131, similarly argues that Judas “goes a long way toward criticizing and mocking apostolic interpretations of Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms. This criticism condemns apostolic interpretations of the crucifixion, which held that Jesus’ death atoned for sins.” See also Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 128: “The very fact that [the disciples] are celebrating the eucharist shows that they are wrong in their understanding that God demands Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. . . the author’s point here is that Jesus himself opposed this (later) practice, because it misconstrued the true meaning of his death, as the author sees it.” 7 Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 177.

40

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Judas is indeed engaged in a theological dispute over whose god is the correct god. By criticizing the legitimacy of the ‘god’ to whom the apostolic cult offers sacrifice, Judas participates in a broader dispute among Jews, Christians and pagans in the second century over whose god(s) should be worshipped. Pagans accused Jews and Christians of atheism because they refused to offer sacrifice to the Greco-Roman gods; Jews and Christians, in turn, railed against pagans as idolaters for offering sacrifice to ‘dead’ gods and demons. The primary critique of pagan religion articulated by the second-century Christian apologists was not that pagans offered sacrifice, but that they offered it to demons pretending to be gods. According to the apologists, these demons were nothing more than apostate angels. 8 Judas indicts the apostolic cult with a similar charge: they worship in error because they offer sacrifice to the wrong god who is really an apostate angel (cf. 51.12–14). But the Gospel of Judas’s criticism has just as much to do with ecclesiastical politics as it does with theological controversies about the legitimacy of the gods. The imagery of the Eucharist and sacrificial cult administered by the twelve disciples points to second-century disputes over church leadership, at the center of which stood the Eucharist. It was not the observance or even the theological interpretation of the Eucharist that was contested, but the question of which Christians had the right to conduct it at all. The Gospel of Judas reveals a specific point in the history of Christianity when lay Christians could still observe the Eucharist without an ordained member of the clergy officiating. In the second century, the concept of ecclesiastical office (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) was relatively new and certainly not well established in all the diverse Christian ekklesiai throughout the Mediterranean. The author of Judas and many other Christians regarded the nascent clergy as an upstart group whose claim to office was questionable at best. In the famous words of the Apocalypse of Peter, these bishops and deacons are “dry canals.” It is likely that the author of Judas belonged to a Christian community who saw no need for ordained clergy to lead the church but, like Paul’s churches a century before, relied on traditional forms of authority such as wealthy patrons, apostles, prophets, and teachers (cf. 1 Cor 12:28). 9 If 8

See, for example, Elaine Pagels, “Christian Apologists and ‘the Fall of the Angels’: An Attack on Roman Imperial Power?” Harvard Theological Review 78.3 (1985): 301– 325. 9 Paul does of course refer to ˩DzǫǵǬ͆DzDZǫǴǬǣ̓ǦǫǣǬ͆ǯDZǫǴ once, in Philippians 1:1. This much debated passage likely points to authority figures unique to the church in Philippi. In any event, it hardly suggests the more developed ecclesiastical offices of subsequent generations. For bibliography and discussion, see Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B. Eerdmans), 66–69.

A. Introduction

41

Paul’s churches had not celebrated the Eucharist with an ordained bishop presiding, why start now? The community to which the author of Judas belonged may have looked something like Tertullian’s description of a Christian group who saw no need for established clerical offices but took turns performing the various duties: “today one man is their bishop, tomorrow another; today he is a deacon who tomorrow is a reader; today he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood.”10 As we shall see, when the nascent clergy began to solidify their authority in Christian communities, they did so by claiming the exclusive right to conduct the Eucharist, and legitimated their claim by appealing to an allegedly unbroken chain of office going back to the twelve disciples. The author of Judas responded by writing the equivalent of a modern political attack ad: a smear campaign against the twelve disciples that cut at the very root of the clergy’s authority. The target of the Gospel of Judas’s criticism is neither the Eucharist, nor the ideology of sacrifice, nor the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death, but the twelve disciples and their corrupt moral character. The author takes issue with the form of church leadership which established itself upon the doctrine of apostolic succession. Thus he carefully develops a portrayal of the Twelve as men who were confused about the true identity of Jesus and the god they served. Although they believed they worshipped the true God and father of Jesus, in actually their god is nothing more than an apostate angel who afflicted their souls with bitter passion. As a consequence of their devotion to such a god, the disciples themselves became enflamed with anger and contention, were morally debased, and ultimately led their followers into sin and error. By telling the story of the twelve disciples this way, Judas challenges the foundational myth held by many Christians who maintained that the Twelve were the authoritative group to whom Jesus entrusted his teaching, commissioned to evangelize the world, and who established the only legitimate, apostolic churches to which all true Christians must belong.11 10

Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 41, trans. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 263. As Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2000), vol. 2, 8 observes: “The limitation of the term ‘apostle’ to the Twelve is a later fiction that appears first in the Gospels of the New Testament, is further elaborated in the Book of Acts, where they become the guarantors of the tradition and the prototype for an ecumenical presbytery. The ‘Twelve Apostles’ are used as an authority for the composition of a church order in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) . . . Many later church orders also used the authority of the (Twelve) Apostles (Apostolic Constitutions, Apostolic Church Order, etc.).” To Koester’s list of writings one may add the Epistula Apostolorum, the various “Gospels of the Apostles” that circulated among early Christians, and the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC VI, 1). See Hennecke-Schneemelcher, The New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia, PA: West11

42

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

The ideology of the Twelve as a special inner circle among Jesus’ followers already appears in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (15:5), where Paul lists them among the believers to whom the resurrected Jesus first appeared. Yet Paul himself regarded the Twelve, or least Peter and John son of Zebedee, with some ambivalence; although they were “acknowledged pillars” in the Jerusalem church, it made no difference to him who they were, for “god shows no partiality” (Gal 2:6). A generation later, the Gospel of Mark portrays the Twelve as rather pathetic followers of Jesus who consistently misunderstand his teaching and ultimately abandon him. The ways in which Paul and Mark represent the Twelve arguably reflect disputes over their legitimacy already in the middle of the first century.12 If the Christian tradition had canonized only Paul and Mark, the prestigious status of the Twelve may have been virtually muted. But by Matthew and Luke’s efforts they were rehabilitated into respectable authority figures chosen by Jesus to evangelize the world after his ascension. John of Patmos also regards the Twelve a privileged group whose names are written on the foundation stones of heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14). By the second century, the ‘myth of the Twelve’ as Jesus’ chosen and holy apostles appointed to evangelize the nations was well developed. According to Justin Martyr, “there went out into the world from Jerusalem men, twelve in number, and these were illiterate, not able to speak, but by the power of God they testified to every race of people that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the Word of God.”13 Justin’s older contemporary, the apologist Aristides who flourished in the time of Hadrian, similarly narrates how “these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.”14 In contrast to Judas’s presentation, Aristides portrays the Twelve evangelizing through their exemplary moral virtue. Near the end of the second century, Tertullian provides one of the most elaborate accounts of ‘the myth of the Twelve’ which emphasizes their indispensable role in the establishment of the apostolic churches: minster Press, 1965), vol. 1, 249–284; 374–382; vol. 2, 42–43. For studies on the concept of ‘the Twelve’ in the New Testament and early Christian writers, see Hans von Campenhausen, Spiritual Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (Stanford University Press, 1969; first German edition by Mohr Siebeck, 1953), esp. 12–29; 149–177; Günter Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 20–49; 75–113; 202–216. 12 See Theodore J. Weeden, Mark – Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). 13 Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 39, trans. Leslie W. Barnard (modified). 14 Aristides, Apology 2, trans. D. M. Kay, Ante-Nicene Fathers (4th edition), v. 9, 265.

A. Introduction

43

Christ Jesus our Lord . . . himself declared what he was, what he had been, what the Father’s will was which he was administering, what humanity’s duty was which he was prescribing, either publicly to the people, or privately to his disciples, from whom he chose the chief twelve to be at his side, destined to teach the nations. And so with one of them struck off, he commanded the remaining eleven, as he was departing to the father after the resurrection, to go and teach the nations that were to be baptized in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Straightaway, then, the apostles – which means “the sent” – having added by lot Matthias as the twelfth in place of Judas on the authority of a prophecy in the psalms of David, received the promised power of the Holy Spirit for miraculous works and speech. And after witnessing to the faith in Jesus Christ and establishing churches throughout Judea, they then set out into the world and proclaimed the same teaching of the same faith to the nations. Then in the same way they founded churches in every city, from which the other churches, one after the next, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of the teaching, and are everyday deriving (them) so that they may become churches. Indeed, it is by this that they call themselves apostolic, as offspring of the apostolic churches.15

Myths like Tertullian’s established divisions between ‘apostolic’ Christians and others, ‘the heretics,’ by providing the clergy with a genealogy for their ecclesiastical authority and their claim to possess the only authentic teaching of Jesus.16 Christians who did not adhere to the churches that claimed an apostolic lineage, and the clergy who presided over them, could be branded as heretics and excommunicated from community fellowship. In his studies of early Christian polemics against the emerging clergy, Klause Koschorke concludes that ancient critics did not reject church offices per se, but “raised objections to any attempt at attributing constitutive importance to the ecclesiastical office – as, for example, seeing it in a mediating agency between God and man without which there can be no fellowship with God. They counter such views with vehement polemic.” 17 The slanderous portrayal of the twelve disciples in the Gospel of Judas can therefore be understood as a critical reaction to the emergence of church offices.

15

Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 20.1–6 (CCSL 1:201–202). Tertullian (Prescription Against Heretics 32, CCSL 1:212–213) continues: “But if there are some (heresies) that dare to plant themselves in the apostolic period, so that they thereby appear to be handed down from the apostles because they existed at the time of the apostles, we can say this: Let them produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the order of their bishops in such a way, running down by a succession from the beginning, that that first bishop has as his founder and predecessor someone from the apostles or apostolic men who, at any rate, had persevered with the apostles.” 17 Klause Koschorke, “Gnostic Instructions on the Congregation,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1981), vol. 2, 765. For a similar discussion, see idem, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nag-Hammadi-Traktate “Apokalypse des Petrus” und “Testimonium Veritatis” (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 67–71. 16

44

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Furthermore, the question of who possessed the right to convene church meetings and perform the Eucharist was central to disputes over church leadership in the second century. As David Brakke observes, “Because the bishop’s authority was closely tied to the Eucharist over which he presided, the withdrawal of communion served him as a primary means of establishing boundaries between his own and rival Christian groups.”18 By claiming the exclusive right to administer the Eucharist, the clergy placed themselves between God and humanity as mediators of the sacrament. By depicting the Twelve as thoroughly immoral priests who perform a Eucharist that serves the wrong god, Judas attempts to undermine the clergy’s authority in the churches. Before turning to a closer analysis of Judas’s critical depiction of the Twelve, it will be helpful to survey two examples of controversies over church leadership and the administration of the Eucharist from the second century: 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. These writings show how the clergy solidified their leadership in the churches by insisting that only they could conduct the celebration of the Eucharist.

B. Politics of the Eucharist Around the beginning of the second century, the Epistle of 1 Clement was composed to address a situation in the Corinthian church in which some members of the congregation had deposed the church’s bishops and deacons, and evidently began holding their own liturgies at times not appointed by the clergy. 19 Its anonymous author (whom I shall refer to as Clement for the sake of convenience) writes from the church in Rome to exhort the Corinthians to restore the clergy to their offices, to give them their due respect as persons ordained by God to conduct the liturgical rites, and to do everything in an orderly way in submission to the clergy.20 As part of his long exhortation, Clement argues that God ordained a hierarchically arranged church in which people should keep to their assigned positions and duties, especially in the performance of liturgical rites. Clement points to God’s organization of the Levitical priesthood as a model for Christians to follow so that they too might conduct their worship orderly: 18

David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 123. 19 For a general introduction to 1 Clement, see Andrew Gregory’s essay in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 21–31. 20 See especially 1 Clement 1–3; 9:1; 13:1; 14:1–2; 21:6; 37; 44:3–6; 46:5–48:6; 54; 57:1–2; 62–63.

B. Politics of the Eucharist

45

We should do everything the Master has commanded us to perform in an orderly way and at appointed times. He commanded that the sacrificial offerings and liturgical rites be performed not in a random or haphazard way, but according to set times and hours. In his superior plan he set forth both where and through whom he wished them to be performed, so that everything done in a holy way and according to his good pleasure might be acceptable to his will. Thus, those who make their sacrificial offerings at the arranged times are acceptable and blessed. And since they follow the ordinances of the Master, they commit no sin. For special liturgical rites have been assigned to the high priest, and a special place has been designated for the regular priests, and special ministries are established for the Levites. The lay person is assigned to matters enjoined on the laity.21

Although Clement does not explicitly identify Christian bishops and presbyters as priests, his emphasis on the special rites, places, ministries and matters appointed to the high priest, regular priests, Levites and laity respectively establishes a biblical precedent for his ideal, hierarchically ordered community in which everyone maintains their own rank and duty. He emphasizes that the liturgies should be performed “in an orderly way,” at the “appointed” and “arranged times,” “where and through whom” God wills. By stressing that those who adhere to this model “commit no sin,” Clement implies that those who perform liturgies apart from this ecclesiastical organization are sinners who act contrary to God’s will. Clement exhorts the Corinthians to adhere to this hierarchy, to “please God by keeping to our special assignments,” and even warns them that “those who do anything contrary to his plan bear the penalty of death” (41:1, 3). In order to demonstrate that the entire church hierarchy was instituted by divine will, Clement sets forth a chain of transmission through which ‘the gospel’ was transmitted from God to Jesus, and from Jesus to his apostles: The apostles were given the gospel for us by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. Thus Christ came from God and the apostles from Christ. Both things happened, then, in an orderly way, according to the will of God. (42:1–2)

Clement then adds a myth of apostolic succession in order to legitimize the pedigree and authority of the Corinthian clergymen who had been deposed by their detractors: Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the name of the bishop’s office. For this reason, since they understood perfectly well in advance what would happen, they appointed those we have already mentioned (the “bishops and deacons” in 42:4 –5); and afterwards they added a codicil, to the effect that if these should die, other approved men (ǦǧǦDZǬǫǮǣǵǮ̀ǯDZǫ˝ǯǦdzǧȍ) should succeed them in their ministry . . . [Therefore], we do not think it right to remove from the ministry those who were appointed by them or, afterwards, by other reputable men (˩ǭǭDZǥ̈́Ǯǻǯ˙ǯǦdzιǯ), with the entire church giving its approval. (44:1 –3) 21

1 Clement 40:1–5 (LCL 24, ed. Bart D. Ehrman). Cf. Campenhausen, Spiritual Authority, 86ff.

46

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Furthermore, Clement defends the clergy by emphasizing their moral integrity: they and their predecessors served “blamelessly and with humility, gently and unselfishly, receiving a good witness by all, many times over.” In contrast to these virtues, he chastises those who deposed the bishops and deacons from their ministries for having committed “no little sin” (44:4, 6). Not long after 1 Clement was composed, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, found himself engaged in similar controversies over who possesses the authority to convene church meetings and perform the Eucharist.22 For Ignatius, the bishop’s authority in the community was largely based on his exclusive privilege to conduct the Eucharist. As W. H. C. Frend observes, One might point . . . to the liturgy and, in particular, the Eucharist for the clue to the permanent emergence of the monarchial bishop. As the Didache shows (10.6), the Eucharist was the moment when the Lord himself would come ‘and this world pass away.’ The celebrant would therefore be in the position of representing the faithful to Christ and Christ to the faithful – the Eucharistic community of the baptized. His position would be superior to that of his fellow presbyters, and this must have contributed powerfully to the establishment of monoepiscopacy in the Pauline and post-Pauline areas of mission.23

Throughout his letters, Ignatius chastises those who “hold invalid meetings” (ǶͅǮ́ǤǧǤǣǫŲǻȍǵǷǯǣǪdzDZǫŲǨǧǵǪǣǫIgMag 4), tells the congregations that “you are to do nothing apart from the bishop” (IgPhil 7:2), and encourages them “to celebrate just one Eucharist” (IgPhil 4).24 According to Ignatius, the only valid Eucharist is the one over which the bishop or his chosen agent presides: “Let no one do anything involving the church without the bishop. Let that Eucharist be considered valid that occurs under the bishop or the one to whom he entrusts it. Let the congregation be wherever the bishop is” (IgSmyr 8:1–2). Although Ignatius knows no myth of apostolic succession like that of 1 Clement, he nevertheless appeals to the idea of the apostles in order to legitimize the authority of the presbyters. He exhorts the church in Magnesia (6:1) to “let the bishop preside in God’s place, and the presbyters take the place of the apostolic council (ǵǷǯǧǦdz̈́DZǷǶιǯ˙DzDZǵǶ͆ǭǻǯ), and let the 22 For an introduction to Ignatius’s letters and the issues of dating, see Paul Foster’s essay in Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, 81–107. For Ignatius’s letters, I follow the Greek text and English translation in The Apostolic Fathers (LCL 24, ed. Ehrman). 23 W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 140– 141. Cf. Campenhausen, Spiritual Authority, 97ff. Although Judas shows no explicit concern with monoepiscopacy, Frend’s observation holds true for the college of presbyters, an institution which pre-dates the development of a single authoritative bishop. 24 Similar concerns run throughout his letters. See Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:2–3; 6:1; 13:1; 20:2; Magnesians 3–4; 6–7; 13; Trallians 2:2; 7:2; 13:2. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans (7:1), Ignatius speaks of people who “abstain from the Eucharist” because they deny the flesh and blood of Christ; yet he then implies in the very next chapter that such people hold their own, unauthorized Eucharist meetings (8:1–2).

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist

47

deacons, my special favorites, be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.” In his letter to the Trallians (3), he similarly exhorts them to “respect the presbyters like the council of God and the cohort of the apostles” (̮ȍǵǷǯ̀ǦdzǫDZǯǪǧDZάǬǣ̮̓ȍǵ͈ǯǦǧǵǮDZǯ˙DzDZǵǶDZǭιǯ). Now when we turn to a detailed analysis of how the Gospel of Judas portrays the twelve disciples and their eucharistic cult, we can see that its critical portrayal of their theology, ignorance, and especially their moral weakness, challenges the apostolic pedigree and ecclesiastical organization advocated by Christians such as 1 Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian and others.25 The author of Judas sought to undermine the clergy’s claims to the Eucharist and leadership by showing how their alleged forerunners, Jesus’ twelve disciples, were theologically naïve and morally bankrupt. His carefully constructed portrayal of their immoral character directly challenges the kind of story told by Aristides, in which the Twelve preach “with all modesty and uprightness” (Apology 2), and 1 Clement’s claim that they were the ‘approved,’ ‘reputable,’ and ‘blameless’ men upon whom Christ built his church (1 Clement 44:1–3).

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist The dialogical narrative of the Gospel of Judas begins with a story about Jesus encountering his disciples in Judea as they perform some kind of ritual practice involving eucharistia, that is, ‘thanksgiving’: One day he came in Judea to his disciples, and found them seated, gathered together, practicing godliness (ѳŶѕѹѩѫёѝљљѷѩѫŶƉѷѫѯѹѷљ). When he [saw] his disciples gathered together, seated, giving thanks over the bread (ѳŶљѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣ), [he] laughed. But the disciples said to him, “Teacher, why are you laughing at [our] thanksgiving (љѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣё)? What have we done? It is what’s right.” He responded to them saying, “I’m not laughing at you. Nor are you doing this by your will; but rather it is by this that your god [will be] praised.” They said, “Teacher, you [. . .] are the son of our god.” Jesus said to them, “How do [you] know me? Indeed I say to you, no race of the people among you will know me.” (33.22௅34.17)

The meaning of the phrase ѕѹѩѫёѝљ љѷѩѫŶƉѷѫѯѹѷљ remains obscure. The Coptic word ѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ can translate Greek ǩƄǪǧǫǾǶǩȍ (Romans 1:20) and ǩƄ ǧ̡ǵ̀Ǥǧǫǣ (1 Clement 15:1),26 so that the closest approximation to the 25 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.1–3 also refutes the teaching of heretics by appealing to an apostolic succession of bishops who, he claims, transmitted the authentic teaching of Jesus. He provides a lengthy list of names to prove that the bishop of Rome can trace his lineage directly to the apostle Peter. According to Campenhausen (Spiritual Authority, 163–169) Irenaeus may have adapted his list from one originally drafted in the midsecond century by Hegesippus. 26 Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 231a.

48

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

entire phrase appears in the Coptic translation of 1 Timothy 4:7, “train yourself in godliness” (ѕѹѩѫёѝљ ѩѩѯѥ љѷѩѫѷљѹѵљѓџѵ; ǥ͈ǮǯǣǨǧ Ǧ̿ ǵǧǣǷǶͅǯDzdzͅȍǧ̡ǵ̀Ǥǧǫǣ). The context in 1 Timothy has no explicit associations with ritual practice, but simply states that training in godliness is even more beneficial than physical training. In Judas, however, the phrase does appear to have ritual connotations. Its position in the partial chiasm “seated – gathered together – practicing godliness – gathered together – seated – giving thanks” (țѩѯѯѵ – ѵѯѯѹț – ѕѹѩѫёѝљ љѷѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ – ѵѯѯѹț – țѩѯѯѵ – љѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣ) suggests that it is synonymous with, or at least anticipates, the disciples’ eucharistic prayer. As I emphasized above, the explicit theological problem in the Gospel of Judas is not the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death, but the fact that the disciples’ eucharistia praises the wrong god. The disciples reveal their theological ignorance when they affirm that Jesus is their god’s son. Jesus’ response clarifies that they are mistaken. They think that Jesus is the son of their god, when in fact – as the reader soon learns from Judas Iscariot – he has a much more exalted identity. He is not the son of the disciples’ god, but an emissary from a greater divine realm, “from the immortal realm of Barbelo” to use a mythological phrase. Jesus laughs when he sees the disciples engaged in their eucharistic prayer, but his laughter is not a joyous one as some interpreters have read it. 27 Jesus laughs derisively, in way which some ancient intellectuals thought appropriate for mocking their opponents.28 However, Judas complicates what would otherwise be a callous portrayal of Jesus as a meanspirited teacher who mocks his followers: for when his disciples ask him “Why are you laughing at us?” Jesus explicitly tells them “I am not laughing at you.” What then provokes his laughter? The text is not altogether

27 For example, Herbert Krosney, The Lost Gospel (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2006), 286: “Jesus . . . is a friendly and benevolent teacher with a sense of humor. Jesus never ridicules others with his laughter. Often, he laughs as he teaches.” I agree with Krosney that Jesus never ridicules others, or at least his disciples. Nevertheless, in my understanding Jesus’ laughter is a derisive one intended to mock the forces of error, and does not indicate his sense of humor. 28 On functions of laughter in ancient Greek culture, see Stephen Halliwell’s magisterial work, Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge University Press, 2008), esp. 264–307. Tertullian also speaks about the deliberate use of laughter to ridicule one’s opponents: “Vain and silly topics are met with especial fitness by laughter. Even the truth may indulge in ridicule, because it is jubilant; it may play with its enemies, because it is fearless. Only we must take care that its laughter be not unseemly, and so itself be laughed at; but wherever its mirth is decent, there it is a duty to indulge it” (Against the Valentinians 6, trans. Ante-Nicene Fathers).

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist

49

clear on this point, and some have even understood Jesus’ response as ironic, so that Jesus is in fact laughing at the disciples.29 I understand Jesus’ response literally. In a later scene in which Jesus laughs, Judas asks, “why [are you laughing at me]?” Jesus similarly responds “I am not laughing [at you],” and then adds “[but] at the straying (or ‘error’) of the stars” (55.12–20). Jesus does not laugh at Judas, but at the stars who lead people into error (54.16–55.12). Therefore in the Eucharist scene, when Jesus tells his disciples that he is not laughing at them, he implies that he mocks the source of their error, the false god they serve. The fact that Jesus explicitly says that he is not laughing at his disciples functions to underscore their foolishness when they respond by becoming angry and blasphemous toward him: When his disciples heard this, [they] began to get contentious (ёѕёѫёѥѷљƉѣƉ) and angry (ѯѳѕџ), and were blaspheming against him in their hearts. But when Jesus saw their foolishness, [he said] to them, “Why has confusion brought forth anger? Your god who is within you and [his stars] have become contentious (ёѕёƉѫƉ>ёѥ@ѷѣ) with your souls. (34.18–35.1)

After seeing their pathetic behavior, Jesus does not lash back at them, but explains the cause of their anger: it comes from the god they serve (and perhaps “[his stars],” if the reconstruction is correct) who “have become contentious with your souls.” Judas’s evaluation of the disciples’ god as angry and malicious departs drastically from the theology set forth in writings such as 1 Clement, which speaks of god’s “gifts of peace and acts of kindness,” his “patient will,” and how “he feels no anger (˙ǾdzǥǩǶDZȍ) toward his entire creation” (19:2–3; cf. 23:1). According to the Gospel of Judas, the disciples’ god is in reality a contentious god who afflicts their souls with anger and confusion.30 29 Fernando Bermejo Rubio, “Laughing at Judas: Conflicting Interpretations of a New Gnostic Gospel” in Codex Judas Papers, 162–163 argues that although Jesus explicitly tells the disciples “I am not laughing at you,” he nevertheless is laughing at them. Bermejo Rubio maintains that “In a polemical context to answer someone ‘I am not laughing at you . . .’, is a very common device of irony to say exactly the opposite of the apparent meaning.” Yet he cites no examples or scholarship to support his argument. A literal understanding of Jesus’ statement makes sense: he is not laughing at the disciples, but rather – it would seem – at their god who causes their ignorance (cf. 55.14–19). 30 If the reconstruction “his [stars]” is correct, then the theologies of the Gospel of Judas and 1 Clement would contrast in yet another interesting way by offering two very different explanations of how the astrological order of the creator god effects humanity. According to 1 Clement, the heavens “move about under his management” and “are peacefully subject to him”; the sun, moon and stars “roll along the tracks that have been appointed to them, in harmony, never crossing their lines, in accordance with the arrangement he has made . . . bringing great benefits to all things, but most especially to us” (20:2–3, 11). Judas agrees with Clement that the creator god commands the stars and

50

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Elaine Pagels and Karen King observe that “this passage is extremely important, as it indicates one of the core assumptions the author is making: that people become like the God they worship.” 31 The disciples inherit characteristics of the angry god they serve, thus becoming angry themselves. The author of Judas probably adapted such a criticism from Christian apologetic rhetoric against pagan theology and redirected it against his Christian opponents to point out their error. In a similar vein, the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus rails against pagan idolaters who worship dead gods and thereby become dead themselves: “These are what you call gods. These are what you serve. These are what you worship. And in the end, these are what you become like.” 32 Whereas the Epistle to Diognetus stresses that those who worship dead gods become dead themselves, Judas implies that the disciples become angry by worshipping an angry god. 33 When Jesus tells his disciples that he is not laughing at them, he adds “Nor are you doing this by your will (țŶ>ѫѱљ@ѷƉѫѯѹҁƉȕƉ); but rather it is by this that your god [will be] praised.” Although the text is not explicit, Jesus’ statement implies that the disciples offer eucharsitic prayer according to the will of their god. Again, Judas challenges the kind of exhortation we saw in 1 Clement and Ignatius, that Christians should behave according to the will of God, especially in their performance of liturgical rites, which are to be conducted at the appointed times by the appointed people (1 Clement 40:3; cf. 2:3; 9:1; 41:34; 42:2; 61:1). When Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians to “celebrate just one Eucharist,” he stresses that “whatever you do, do according to God (ǬǣǶ̽Ǫǧͅǯ).”34 Judas undermines such exhortation by explaining that the disciples pray according to the will of a god who, far from being benevolent, inflicts their souls with anger. The fact that the disciples serve such a god against their will casts their devotion in terms of ‘bad religion,’ or to use the philosopher Plutarch’s term, ǦǧǫǵǫǦǣǫǮDZǯ̈́ǣ, ‘superstition.’ Plutarch draws upon an older critique of unhealthy piety, already formulated by Aristotle’s pupil Theophrastus, other heavenly bodies subject to his control. Yet for Judas the creator god “and [his stars]” do not benefit humanity, but afflict souls with bitter passions. 31 Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 130. 32 Epistle to Diognetus 2.5 (LCL 25, ed. Ehrman). 33 Martyrological literature contains similar criticisms of pagans and their gods. In the Martyrdom of Saint Carpus 6, when the Roman proconsul asks Carpus to sacrifice to the pagan gods, he responds, “It is impossible for me to sacrifice to these demons with their deceptive appearances. For those who sacrifice to them are like them” (ed. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 22–23). In his Commentary on John fr. 46 (ed. Völker), Heracleon similarly explains that wicked people are called “children of the devil” not because they are his children by nature, as if the devil produced them, but because they do the work of the devil and so “became like him.” 34 Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 4 (LCL 24, ed. Ehrman).

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist

51

to characterize proper religious devotion in terms of a moderate attitude toward the gods. The pious person maintains a happy medium of devotion without tending toward atheism on one extreme or total fear of the gods on the other. Conversely, the superstitious person serves the gods against his will because he fears their retribution. Plutarch maintains that while “the atheist thinks there are no gods, the superstitious man wishes there were none, but believes in them against his will (˝Ǭǻǯ).”35 Although Judas does not depict the disciples as fearing their god, the idea that they offer eucharistia against their will suggests that their devotion is motivated by the wrong reasons and is therefore not a healthy form of piety. They worship an angry god who demands service against the will of his devotees. After the author of Judas develops the disciples’ character as contentious, angry, and blasphemous toward Jesus, he goes on to depict them as morally weak and unworthy of belonging to the holy race. Having explained that the angry god is the source of the disciples’ anger, Jesus challenges them: Let the [stable] one (ѱƉљѷ>ѷ@ёƉ>ȝѳ@џƉѹƉ) among you people bring forth the perfect human (ѱѳҁ>ѩљ@ѫƉѷљѧѣѯѵ) and stand before my face.” And they all said, “We are strong (ȝѯѯѳ).” But their spirit could not dare to stand in [his] presence, except for Judas [Is]cariot. He could stand before him, but not look into his eyes; instead he turned his face away. Judas said to him, “I know who you are and whence you have come. You have come from the immortal realm of Barbelo, and he who sent you, I am not worthy to proclaim his name.” (35.2–21)

In this passage, the author uses rather cryptic language – “the [stable] one,” “the perfect human,” and the notion of strength – as the standards against which the disciples are shown to be inadequate. These ideals reflect special qualities which Sethian Christians like the author of Judas used to characterize members of their holy race. As Michael Williams has shown, some Sethian texts employ the designation ‘immovable race’ as a sectarian name in order to emphasize their special character as strong, stable, and perfect individuals, that is, people who achieved a state of apatheia and are therefore ‘unmoved’ by passions stirred-up by the body and demons.36

35

Plutarch, On Superstition (Moralia 164e–171f, LCL 222, trans. Frank C. Babbit) 170f. Theophrastus (Characters 16, LCL, ed. J. M. Edmonds) remarks that “superstitiousness, I need hardly say, would seem to be a sort of cowardice (Ǧǧǭ̈́ǣ) with respect to the divine.” On Theophrastus, Plutarch, and other ancient critics of deisidaimonia, see Dale Martin, Inventing Superstition: from the Hippocratics to the Christians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 21–35; 51–78; 93–108. 36 Michael A. Williams, The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 151.

52

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

The author of Judas invokes the notions of stability and strength to characterize his holy race as well. Indeed, the only other occurrences of the word ‘strong’ (ȝѯѯѳ) in this Gospel are when Jesus uses it to speak about “the strong (ȝѯѯѳ) and holy race” (36.25–26; 42.13). Although there is no way of knowing the exact Greek terms that underlie our Coptic translation of Judas, there is a close relationship between the Coptic word ѷёȝѳџѹ (ѷёȝѳѯ, the causitive form of ȝѳѯ, ȝѯѯѳ), meaning ‘strong, stable, established,’ and the word ёѷѥѣѩ (= ˙ǵ̾ǭǧǷǶDZȍ) found in other Sethian texts that speak about the immovable race.37 The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit uses the same designations for the holy race when it refers to “the great, incorruptible, immovable race (ѩљѵѥѣѩ) of the great strong (ѫŶȝҁҁѳљ) people of the great Seth” (NHC III 59.12–15). In Judas, the fact that the disciples lack the necessary ‘strength’ to stand before Jesus signifies that they do not belong to this race. They are unstable and spiritually weak, as demonstrated by their preceding outburst of contention, anger, and blasphemy against their own master. The notion of the ‘perfect human’ directly relates to this ideal of psychological stability (apatheia). Ismo Dunderberg has pointed out how Hellenistic philosophers, including Philo of Alexandria, saw a special relationship between the ideal, perfect human and the passion of anger. According to Philo, only a few sages such as Moses, Socrates, Pythagoras, and Plato achieved the status of the apathetic perfect human by severing themselves from all emotions, but in particular from anger (̕dzǥ͂ or Ǫ͈ǮDZȍ). 38 Drawing upon this philosophical tradition, the Apocryphon of John applies the ideal of the passionless, perfect human to the most exemplary members of its immovable race. In one of the few windows into the ethical ideals of Sethian Christians, Jesus describes the moral qualities of people who receive the Spirit and become ‘perfect’: Those upon whom the Spirit of life will descend and exist with the power (in them) will be saved and they will become perfect (ѷљѧљѣѯѵ) and be worthy of the greatness and be purified in that place from all wickedness and attention to evil. Then they attend to nothing except incorruptibility alone, since from here on they are concerned with it, without anger (ѯѳѕџ), or envy, or jealousy, or desire, and greed for everything. They are held by none of these things, except only the substance of the flesh, which they carry around 37 Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 463a provides at least one example, Deut. 11:18, where a Sahidic translator rendered ˙ǵ̾ǭǧǷǶDZǯ as ѷёȝѳџѹ, while a Bohairic translator rendered it ёѷѥѣѩ. 38 Ismo Dunderberg, “Judas’ Anger and the Perfect Human,” in Codex Judas Papers, 201–221, esp. 205–210. Although Dunderberg’s discussion of the relationship between anger and the perfect human focuses almost exclusively on its implications for this gospel’s portrayal of Judas (217–221), it is equally important for understanding the portrayal of the Twelve as people spiritually weaker than Judas, and thus even further from achieving perfection.

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist

53

while they wait for the time in which they will be visited by the Receivers. Now persons of this sort are worthy of the incorruptible, eternal life and the calling, since they endure everything and bear everything, so that they complete the good (other mss. read “complete the contest”) and inherit eternal life.39

In the Gospel of Judas, ‘the perfect human’ embodies the ideals of stability, strength, immovability, and apatheia which Sethian Christians valued as defining moral characteristics of Seth’s race. By portraying the disciples as people who failed to demonstrate these qualities, Judas signifies that they did not belong to the holy race, but were weak and spiritually immature people subject to the angry passions of a god whom they served against their will. The disciples not only lack the necessary courage to bring forth the perfect human and stand before Jesus, but this Gospel amplifies its polemic by portraying Judas Iscariot as someone with the requisite strength, though tempered by his inability to look Jesus in the eyes. That Judas “turned his face away” suggests that while he knows Jesus’ true identity, he cannot sustain contact with his magnificent glory.40 The scene highlights the other disciples’ spiritual weakness by elevating Judas Iscariot’s insight and power above their own. As Antti Marjanen observes, Judas Iscariot “is pictured as Jesus’ special disciple because, through him, the text can criticize the other disciples and the form of Christianity they represent.”41 In this respect, the figure of Judas plays a narrative role similar to John’s ‘beloved disciple’ who frequently outshines Peter. But the fact that it is Judas Iscariot – the most notorious villain in the Christian tradition – who in Judas’s narrative exceeds the other disciples serves all the more to scandalize any reader sympathetic to the Twelve.42 39 Apocryphon of John, NHC II 25.23–26.7. I follow the translation of Williams, Immovable Race, 127. For the Coptic text, see The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; IV,1 with BG 8502,2, ed. Michael Waldstein and Frederick Wisse (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 68–69. 40 The Book of the Watchers highlights God’s glory with a similar narrative. Enoch describes God dwelling in his heavenly temple, but explains that “no angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no flesh could look at him.” Similar to the way Judas “turned his face away,” Enoch says that as he stood at the threshold of God’s throne room, “I kept my face down” (ǶͅDzdz͆ǵǻDz͆ǯǮDZǷ Ǭ̾Ƕǻ˭ǬǷǸDZǯ). See 1 Enoch 14:21, 24, ed. Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 28–29. Exodus 33:20 also emphasizes God’s glory when God tells Moses that he cannot see his face and live. 41 Marjanen, “Does the Gospel of Judas Rehabilitate Judas Iscariot?” in Gelitten, Gestorben, Auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum, ed. Tobias Nicklas et al. (Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 224. 42 A pattern of contrast between Judas and the Twelve, in which Judas outstrips the Twelve yet still finds that his abilities are limited, runs throughout the Gospel of Judas. The author probably intended the respective dreams of the Twelve and Judas to be read

54

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

The final passage of the Eucharist scene concludes as Jesus refers to an idea of apostolic succession, although an unfortunate lacuna in the manuscript obscures its full content: Now since Jesus knew that he (Judas) was considering something lofty, he said to him, “Separate from them and I will tell you the mysteries of the kingdom; not so you may go there, but so that you will mourn deeply. For indeed there is another who will take your place, so that the twelve . . . (ѵƉ>@ѯƉѫƉ) shall be complete in their god.” And Judas said to him, “What day will you tell me about this? And when will the great day of light dawn for [that] race?” Yet when he said this, Jesus left him. (35.21–36.10)

The reference to someone who will take Judas’s ‘place’ (ѩё [= Ƕ͆DzDZȍ]) clearly alludes to the Book of Acts (1:25), where Matthias is chosen by lot to take the place (Ƕ͆DzDZǯ) of Judas. However, the difficult lacuna and ink traces after the reference to ‘the twelve’ obscure what Jesus adds about them becoming “complete in their god.” The editors of the Critical Edition sensibly reconstruct the lacuna with the Coptic word ѫŶѵѓѯѹǼ, disciples: țѣѫё ȝљ љƉ>ѳљ ѱ@ѩѫŶѷѵѫѯѯѹѵ ѫŶѵ>ѓѯѹǼ@ѯƉѫƉљƉѹљȝҁѥљѓѯѧțѫŶѱљѹѫѯѹѷљ, “so that the twelve [disciples] shall again be complete in their god.” Although this reconstruction fits the length of the lacuna (4–5 character spaces), it remains somewhat problematic since in all other instances Judas refers to the disciples with the Greek word ѩёѡџѷџѵ. As an alternative, Jaques van der Vliet suggests the reconstruction ѫŶѵƉ>ѷѯѣѽѣ@ѯƉѫƉ (the Coptic plural form of Greek ǵǶDZǫǹǧΝǣ), that is, “the twelve [elements].”43 Indeed, this reconstruction fits the length of the la-

in contrast. The Twelve witness the sinful house of sacrifice in their dream, while Judas sees the heavenly house in his. And yet just as Judas’s higher abilities are moderated in the eucharistic scene when he cannot look Jesus in the eyes, his ability to see the heavenly house is moderated by the fact that he is not allowed to enter it. Another instance of Judas’s outstripping the Twelve may be seen in the fact that Jesus tells the disciples that “you are kings” in these realms (37.16), but Judas himself will eventually “rule” over all the human races. And yet again, Judas’s more privileged status is moderated by the fact that he will not join the holy race (46.20–47.1). This pattern of seemingly intended contrasts in which Judas always does better than the other disciples, yet falls short of perfection in some respect, may shed light on the still ambiguous nature of Jesus’ contrast between “those who offer sacrifice to Saklas” (apparently the other disciples), and Judas who will “exceed” (ѳŶțѯѹѯ) them all by sacrificing the man who bears Jesus (56.11–21). Read according to the pattern that I have pointed out, one could interpret Judas’s sacrifice as something better than that of the others since it has positive implications – the triumphal soteriology for which I have argued in Chapter One – while at the same time it depicts Judas in a deficient light as the angry disciple who betrayed his master (56.21–24; 58.24–26). 43 Jacques van der Vliet, “Judas and the Stars: Philological Notes on the Newly Published Gospel of Judas,” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 36 (2006), 140–142.

C. The Disciples’ Eucharist

55

cuna slightly better than ѵ>ѓѯѹǼ@, since the additional iota in ѵƉ>ѷѯѣѽѣ@ѯƉѫ fills up what is otherwise about half an empty character space. Although this would be the only instance of the word ѵѷѯѣѽѣѯѫ in the Gospel of Judas, it would nevertheless resonate with other Jewish and Christian writings that identify the stars and other heavenly powers with cosmic ǵǶDZǫǹǧΝǣ. 44 These twelve cosmic elements, then, would be the heavenly counterparts of the twelve disciples to which Jesus alludes elsewhere in the narrative (“your stars and angels” 41.5–6; “each of you has his own star” 42.7–8; and multiple references to Judas’s star: 45.13, 55.10, 56.23, 57.21). 45 Clement of Alexandria speaks of a similar tradition, according to which the twelve apostles “were substitutes” (ǮǧǶǧǶǟǪǩǵǣǯ) for the twelve signs of the Zodiac.46 That someone must take Judas’s place so that “the twelve [elements] shall be complete in their god” indicates that just as the number of the Twelve must be restored on earth (Acts 1:16–26), so must their celestial counterparts be restored in heaven. In Judas, then, the twelve disciples and their successors (who shall eventually take their places) are not merely human pawns of the god they serve, but play an important role in the economy of his universe. As humanity lives in subordination to the astral powers, the author of Judas suggests that some Christians live in subordination to the Twelve and their successors, the clergy. 47 In this section, I have argued that the polemic in the Gospel of Judas’s Eucharist scene focuses more on the corrupt moral character of the twelve disciples than on mistaken interpretations of Jesus’ death, the theology of atonement, or the celebration of the Eucharist per se. In so far as theological problems are a concern, the scene criticizes the disciples for not know44 For example, the Testament of Solomon 8:2; 18:1; Galatians 4:3; Colossians 2:8; Excerpts of Theodotus 81.3. The Apocalypse of Abraham 19:9 also speaks of the “elements of earth” which obey the directives of the stars. 45 On the relationship between the disciples and the stars in Judas, see Seonyoung Kim, “The Gospel of Judas and the Stars,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 293–309; April DeConick, “Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature,” in Codex Judas Papers, 243–288; Nicola Denzey Lewis, “Fate and the Wandering Stars: The Jewish Apocalyptic Roots of the Gospel of Judas,” in Codex Judas Papers, 289–324. 46 Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts of Theodotus 25 (ed. Casey): “He [i.e., Theodotus or another Valentinian teacher] says the Apostles were substitutes for the twelve signs of the Zodiac, for, as birth is directed by them, so is rebirth directed by the Apostles.” ǒ̆ ˡDzǾǵǶDZǭDZǫ Ǹǩǵǡ ǮǧǶǧǶǟǪǩǵǣǯ ǶDZΝǴ ǦǧǬǣǦǿDZ ǨηǦǡDZǫǴy ̮Ǵ ǥ̽dz ̢Dzϋ ˩Ǭǧǡǯǻǯ ˶ ǥǟǯǧǵǫǴ ǦǫDZǫǬǧΝǶǣǫDZ̦ǶǻǴ̢DzͅǶιǯˡDzDZǵǶǾǭǻǯ˶˙ǯǣǥǟǯǯǩǵǫǴ Cf. Jean Daniélou, “Les douze apôtres, et le zodiaque,” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959): 14–21. 47 Hence in a later scene, unfortunately obscured by breaks in the manuscript, Jesus tells the disciples about the realms “in which you are kings” (37.16). Cf. Matthew 19:28, and Tertullian’s reference to the cathedrae apostolorum in Prescription 36.1.

56

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

ing Jesus’ true identity and the nature of the angry god whom they serve against their will. The remainder of the scene focuses on the Twelve’s immoral character: first it portrays them as reflections of their angry god when they themselves become angry toward Jesus; then it highlights their failure to demonstrate the ethical qualities of stability, strength and human perfection that characterize the author’s “strong and holy race.” Finally, when Jesus predicts that someone else will take Judas’s place among the twelve so that they will be “complete in their god,” it assumes a notion of apostolic succession, and implies that the number of the Twelve had to be restored to its full measure as an important function of their god’s control over the world. I now turn to Judas’s second polemical scene where it amplifies its criticism of the Twelve.

D. The Temple Vision Whereas the Gospel of Judas’s eucharistic scene criticizes the Twelve’s corrupt moral character by portraying them as ignorant, spiritually weak and inflamed with bitter passion, its second polemical scene amplifies this criticism by portraying them as thoroughly wicked priests engaged in all sorts of horrendous sins. In this scene, the disciples tell Jesus about a disturbing dream they had the night before in which they saw twelve wicked priests offering bloody sacrifices on an altar while a devout crowd stood by. When Jesus interprets the dream, he reveals to the disciples that they themselves are the wicked priests, that the altar is their god, and that their sacrifices are the people whom they lead astray: Jesus came to them another day. They said to him, “Teacher, we saw you in a dream. For we had great [dreams last] night.” [But Jesus said], “Why [. . .] you concealed yourselves?” They [said, “We saw] a great house [with a great] altar in it, and twelve people, whom we say are priests, and a name. There was a crowd devoted to that altar [until] the priests [came out and received] the offerings. And we ourselves continued in devotion.” [Jesus said], “Of what sort are [. . . ]?” And they said, “Some fast for two weeks; others sacrifice their very own children, and others their wives, all the while praising and behaving with humility toward one another. Some sleep with men, others murder, while others commit many sins and crimes. And the people standing over the altar invoke your [name]. And as they are engaged in all their sacrificial acts, that [altar] is filled up.” After they said this they became silent since they were confused. Jesus said to them, “Why are you confused? Truly I say to you, all the priests standing over that altar are invoking my name. And also I tell you, my name was written on this [house] of the races of the stars by the human races, and [they] shamefully planted fruitless trees in my name.” And Jesus said to them, “It is you who receive the offerings for the altar that you saw. That (altar) is the god you serve. The twelve people whom you saw, they’re you. And the animals brought forth are the sacrifices you saw – these are the crowd you lead astray. (37.20–39.28)

D. The Temple Vision

57

As I mentioned above, scholars have proposed a number of interpretations of this passage. Some posit that Judas attacks the sacrificial interpretation of the Eucharist as a commemoration of Jesus’ death; hence this scene continues and amplifies the first scene’s critique of the Twelve’s eucharistia, now casting it in sacrificial terms. Others suggest that the author attacks the interpretation of martyrdom as sacrifice, especially in light of the fact that the priests offer human sacrifice. Another researcher proposes that the sacrifices represent Christian baptism.48 What all these suggestions have in common is that they assume the sacrifice imagery refers cryptically to a specific ritual or practice such as Eucharist, martyrdom, or baptism. The modus operandi has been to scour early Christian literature in search of all the various ways Christians interpreted sacrifice, and then correlate them to Judas’s criticism. However, I suggest that the sacrificial imagery need not refer to any one specific Christian practice. The focus of the scene is on the twelve disciples and their pathetic moral character. The author’s goal was to undermine the clergy’s authority; his strategy was to launch an ad hominem attack on the Twelve with a battery of stock polemics – human sacrifice, murder, homosexuality, generic charges of “sins and crimes” – that ancient readers would have recognized as marks of barbarism and cultural subversion. By implication, any cult practices administered by clergy who claim succession from the Twelve are invalidated. The charge of illicit sacrifice, especially human sacrifice, was simply one way people in the ancient world demonized their enemies. Some interpretations of this passage stress that the author deliberately portrays the Twelve as Jewish priests, and therefore criticizes them for perpetuating the Jerusalem cult in service of the god of Israel.49 The author of Judas, like other Sethian Christians, certainly identifies the false god worshipped by the disciples with the God of the Hebrew Bible who proclaims “Let us make man” (52.14–17; cf. Gen 1:26). Moreover, Judas’s 48

On Eucharist, see, for example, Louis Painchaud, “À propos,” and “Polemical Aspects,” passim; April DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 130–131; Frank Williams, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, its Exegesis, and its Place in Church History,” passim. On martyrdom, see Townsend, Irichinshi, Jenott, “The Betrayer’s Gospel,” 32–37; Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 59–75. On baptism, see Bas van Os, “Stop Sacrificing!” 367– 386. 49 The editors of the NGS 2006 translation (25n36) note that “the disciples have a vision of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem”; Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 177: Judas opposes “the sacrificial interpretation of Christianity . . . seen as the perpetuation of the temple cult”; Anna van den Kerchove, “La maison, l’autel, et les sacrifices: quelques remarques sur la polémique dans l’Évangile de Judas,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 318: “la maison ferait-elle référence à un lieu de culte Chrétien qui serait dans le même temps assimilé au Temple de Jérusalem.”

58

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

description of the crowd and disciples “continuing in devotion” (ѱѳѯѵ ѥёѳѷљѳљѣ) may have been intended to echo the Book of Acts (2:46), which narrates how after Pentecost the twelve apostles remained “devoted with one accord in the temple” (DzdzDZǵǬǣdzǶǧdzDZάǯǶǧǴ̖ǮDZǪǷǮǣǦͅǯ˩ǯǶκ ̆ǧdzκ). Painchaud suggests that some of the activities which the disciples see the priests performing, namely fasting, mutual abasement (i.e., their acting with humility toward one another), and sacrifices, refer to Jewish cultic practices prescribed in the Torah.50 In particular, he suggests that the description of the priests acting with humility toward one another (ѡѓƩѓѣџѹ ѫŶѫŶљѹљѳџѹ [= ǶǣDzǧǫǯDZάǯ]) 51 echoes Leviticus’s prescription that on the Day of Atonement “you shall humble your souls” (ǶǣDzǧǫǯȀǵǧǶǧ Ƕ̽ȍ ǺǷǹ̽ȍ 23:27, 29, 32; cf. 16:29, 31). However, it must be observed that the author’s criticism goes far beyond a mere portrayal of the disciples as priests perpetuating the cult of the Jerusalem temple. His description of the priests engaged in child sacrifice, homosexual activity, and murder demonstrates that they violate even the statutes of their own god whose Torah prohibits child sacrifice (Lev 18:21; 20:3), a man “lying with a man” (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and murder (Ex 20:13 Deut 5:17). Judas’s polemic does not only claim that the disciples perpetuate a cult which serves the God of Israel, but that they even transgress the laws of this God. Whether or not the author of Judas intended to portray the disciples as Jewish priests, the specific details of his description can be understood as a traditional list of slanderous tropes. Jews frequently characterized idolatrous heathens (goyim) in similar terms. The Jewish Sibylline Oracles (3.762–765), for example, characterize Greeks with a litany of sins that include idolatry, homosexuality (cf. 3.185; 3.596), and infanticide. In his letter to the Romans, Paul similarly describes the lifestyle of pagans with vices including homosexuality, murder, general wickedness, and the praising of others who do such things (1:24–32).52 In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the patriarch sees a vision of horrible sins committed in the world, including murder, homosexuality, fornication, defilement, theft, desire, idolatry, and, as in Judas, an altar on which boys are slaughtered (24–25; cf. 21:1; 22:2; 30:5).

50

Painchaud, “Polemical Aspects,” 176. See Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 457b–458a. 52 The vice of praising others who practice vice themselves may be reflected in Judas’s reference to the priests “praising and behaving with humility toward one another,” especially if the pronoun ‘one another’ (ѫљѹљѳџѹ) is read as the object of both ‘praising’ and ‘acting with humility.’ This may be another stock polemic, especially since a similar accusation appears in the Testament of Asher 6:2. 51

D. The Temple Vision

59

Pagans slandered their opponents, especially foreign and potentially subversive cults, with the same generic accusations. The most famous example is the dreaded Bacchanalian cult which, as the historian Livy records, the Romans strove to eradicate from Italy in 186 B.C.53 The Romans feared that the Bacchants practiced all sorts of horrible iniquities, including secret night-time orgies involving promiscuous sex (39.8.4, 7, 12.4), debauchery and murder (stupra et caedes 39.8.9, 18.4), ritual abstinence and/or fasting for ten days time (decem dierum castimonia 39.9.4), human sacrifice (39.10.7, 13.11), homosexual acts (plura virorum inter sese quam feminarum esse stupra 39.13.10), and every sort of disgrace, obscenity, crime, evil, lust and madness (39.10.8, 11.7, 13.10, 16.2–5, 17.7). The Gospel of Judas’s description of the priests’ great immoralities rings of such stock polemic. Although many interpreters, including myself, have suggested that Judas’s charge of human sacrifice criticizes the promotion of Christian martyrdom, we must remember that in antiquity the accusation of human sacrifice – perhaps more than any other – was invoked to indict one’s opponents for barbarism and subversion of ‘decent society.’ Greeks and Romans frequently defined the difference between their civilized world and that of the barbarians (and in one case even Jews) by stressing that the latter offer human sacrifice. The accusation of human sacrifice became a primary means by which Romans and Christians belittled each other’s cult practices.54 As J. Rives aptly observes, Human sacrifice . . . functioned as an important sign in a fundamental discourse about culture and humanity. When told about barbarians, it served to mark, usually with negative connotations, the cultural distance that existed as a corollary of geographical distance. When told about neighbors, it served to create cultural distance even in the absence of geographical distance (or in the case of the Jews, to emphasize and mark the negative value of a pre-existing cultural distance). It is easy enough to see how the accusations of child sacrifice made against the Christians functioned along the same general lines.55

The Gospel of Judas draws upon this well established discourse about civilization and barbarism in order to mark off its ‘neighbor,’ the twelve disciples’ cult, as distant and culturally deviant. Its specific description of priests who “sacrifice their very own children” reiterates a traditional Jewish polemic against the idolatrous nations and wayward Israelites who sacrifice their children to gods such as Molech.56 Moreover, by charging the 53

Livy, Histories 39.8–18 (LCL 313, ed. Evan T. Sage). See the thorough study by James B. Rives, “Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995): 65–85. 55 Rives, “Human Sacrifice,” 73–74. 56 Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; 2 Kings 17:16–18; 23:10; Psalms 106:37–38; Jeremiah 32:35. Cf. Ed Noort, “Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel: Status Quaestiones,” in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Peeters, 2007), 103–125. 54

60

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

priests with child sacrifice, Judas merely repeats what Roman critics were already saying about Christians, that in their meetings they engage in all kinds of horrible sins including the sacrifice of children.57 Ironically, some scholars point to the allegedly immoral behavior of “libertine Gnostics” described by Church Fathers as the actual source of Roman slander against Christians.58 Yet the Gospel of Judas demonstrates how a so-called Gnostic author could just as easily level the same generic accusations against apostolic Christians, who in his eyes were the real heretics. Although most of Judas’s accusations correspond to typical tropes of immoral behavior, its description of the priests sacrificing their wives is admittedly rather unique. How can we understand it? Anna van den Kerchove suggests that it was intended to criticize the chastity of Christian widows who chose not to remarry, since Tertullian speaks about widows “offering” (parentant) their chastity in memory of their late husbands.59 I am less inclined to see in this passage a highly cryptic criticism of widows’ chastity. The ‘offering’ made by widows in memory of their husbands does not easily map onto Judas’s charge that the priests sacrifice their wives. Alternatively, I suggest the accusation of sacrificing one’s wife served to amplify the more generic charge of human sacrifice. By specifying the offerings of children and wives, the author highlights that these wicked priests do not merely offer human sacrifice, but even worse, they offer their own kin. That is, they sacrifice those whom according to Roman family ideals one ought to cherish and protect the most.60 When we recall the importance that Romans placed on the family unit as the primary social organization through which civilization perpetuated itself, the charge that these wicked priests ritually murder their own kin would have represented

57 See Robert Grant, “Charges of ‘Immorality’ Against Various Religious Groups in Antiquity,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 161–170; Mark J. Edwards, “Some Early Christian Immoralities,” Ancient Society 23 (1992): 71–82; Rives, “Human Sacrifice,” 74–77. 58 For a critical discussion of the scholarship, see L. Roig Lanzillotta, “The Early Christians and Human Sacrifice,” in Strange World of Human Sacrifice, 98–102: “the most remarkable thing about this explanation is that while no single scholar gives credit to the charges when they are pressed against mainstream Christians, most investigators do tend to believe them when told about heretics.” 59 Anna van den Kerchove, “La maison, l’autel, et les sacrifices,” 324–325. Cf. Tertullian, Ad uxorem 6.1 (CCSL 1:380). 60 See Suzanne Dixon, “The Sentimental Idea of the Roman Family,” in Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 99– 113. Livy (39.15.14) reflects this ideal in his account of the Bacchanalian scandal when the Roman consul asks the citizens, “Will men debased by their own debauchery and that of others fight to the death on behalf of the purity of your wives and children?”

D. The Temple Vision

61

them as not only thoroughly shameful, but a threat to the entire social order as well.61 The Gospel of Judas’s indictment of the priests’ immorality invalidates their cult by playing on a value held by many people in antiquity, that proper service of a deity requires not only ritual purity but also moral purity. That is, the sacrificer must possess the correct ethical disposition as a prerequisite for offering a valid sacrifice. As Jonathan Klawans observes, “the hard-and-fast distinction between ritual and ethics has prevented scholars from appreciating the degree to which ritual and ethics are inherently connected – and virtually inseparable – when it comes to sacrifice.”62 Although this important relationship is often overlooked by modern scholars, many ancient authors stressed the need for proper morality as a prerequisite for effective sacrifice. Long before the Gospel of Judas was composed, the Hebrew prophets emphasized that God abhors sacrifices offered by those who do not observe ethical behavior. 63 Greek and Roman philosophers similarly argued that sacrifices offered by morally impure people accomplish nothing. According to Plato: If a good man sacrifices to the gods and keeps them constant company in his prayers and offerings and every kind of worship he can give them, this will be the best and noblest policy he can follow; it is the conduct that fits his character as nothing else can, and it is his most effective way of achieving a happy life. But if the wicked man does it, the results are bound to be just the opposite. Whereas the good man’s soul is clean, the wicked man’s soul is polluted, and it is never right for a good man or for God to receive gifts from unclean hands – which means that even if impious people do lavish a lot of attention on the gods, they are wasting their time . . .64

In the first century of the common era, the Roman Stoic Seneca stressed a similar relationship between proper morality and valid sacrifices: The honor that is paid to the gods lies not in the victims for sacrifice, though they be fat and glittered with gold, but in the upright and holy desire of the worshippers. Good men, therefore, are pleasing to the gods with an offering of meal and gruel; the bad, on the other hand, do not escape impiety although they dye the altars with streams of blood. 65 61

On the importance of the family as an essential social structure in Roman civilization, see Beryl Rawson, “The Roman Family,” in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, ed. idem (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986). Cf. Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), esp. 24–30, 108–116; Peter Brown, Body and Society (New York: Columbia University Pres, 1998), 5–6. 62 Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford University Press, 2006), 249. 63 For example, Amos 5:21–24; Micah 6:6–8; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:11–17; Jeremiah 6:20–21; 7:1–15; 1 Samuel 15:22. Cf. Klawans, Purity 75–100. 64 Plato, Laws IV 716d–e, trans. Trevor J. Saunders in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), 1403. 65 Seneca, De beneficiis 1.6, trans. J. W. Basore, Seneca: Moral Essays (LCL), 24–25.

62

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Seneca’s older contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, insisted that those who offer sacrifice must be pure in both body and soul in order for God to receive the offering. He allegorically interpreted the Torah’s regulations for sacrificing unblemished victims (Lev 22:17–25) as symbolic of the blameless state that people must be in when they make an offering: “it would teach them under this symbol that when they approach the altar to offer either prayers or thanksgiving they must come with no infirmity or ailment or passion in the soul, but must endeavor to have it sanctified and free throughout from defilement, so that when God sees it he does not turn away.”66 Therefore, says Philo, “he who intends to sacrifice must consider not whether the victim is unblemished but whether his own mind stands free from defect and imperfection.” Like the Hebrew prophets before them, Plato, Seneca, and Philo all stress that an effective sacrifice requires moral uprightness. The prerequisite of good morality for valid cult service was by no means limited to the speculation of philosophers. In practice, it was also at the center of the Qumran community’s criticism of the priests who presided over the Jerusalem temple. Hence the community’s commentary on Habakkuk criticizes “the Wicked Priest” (probably one or more of the Hasmonean kings) for corrupting the Temple through his own indulgence in ill-gotten wealth, crimes, and “every unclean defilement.” According to the Qumran sectarians, the wicked priest “committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God.”67 The rationale of Judas’s polemic can be understood within this broader discourse about the important relationship between sacrifices and morality. Its portrayal of the disciples as thoroughly wicked priests painted their cult as ritually ineffective and culturally subversive. Thus its author challenged the validity of Christian clergy who appealed to the disciples as the foundation of ecclesiastical office, and like Ignatius, insisted that the only valid meetings were those over which clergy presides. Judas’s Jesus then bolsters his criticism by pronouncing a prophecy about the future sins of the apostolic cult and its leaders. I now turn to an analysis of this prophecy.

66 Philo, Special Laws I, trans. F. H. Colson (LCL, modified), 167, 283; cf. 260: “all this careful scrutiny of the animal is a symbol representing in a figure the reformation of your own conduct.” For Philo’s broader discussion, see 257–298, esp. 269–70, 277, 290. 67 1QpHab 8:3–13; 12:2–9, trans. Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997), 482–484.

E. The Future of the Apostolic Cult

63

E. The Future of the Apostolic Cult Jesus’ prophecy, inscribed entirely on page 40 of the Codex, involves a series of notorious difficulties that have puzzled many readers. I will first provide the Coptic text and translation as I understand it, then discuss the individual problems in order to arrive at an interpretation of the whole. The prophecy reads: 1    5     10     15     20     25 

ѩŶѩѯȗљȝѫŶѱ>љ@ѡѹ>ѵѣ@ёƉѵƉѷџѳƉѣƉ ѯѫƉљѷѩŶƉ>ѩё@ѹƉ>ȗѫ@ёƉ>ҁ@țƉљѳёѷƩȗ ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣѱљѷѫŶїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵёѹҁƉ ѡƉ>љ@ѷƉљƉѷёƉљƉѣљѷȗŶѫёѽѳёѵѡёѣ ѩŶѱёѳёѫёѹҁѵљѫёѳѱѳѯѵ ѥёƉѳƉѷљѳљѣљѳѯȗѫŶңѣѫ!ѕљѫљё! ѫŶƉ>ѫ@љƉѹѵљѓџѵѩƩѫƩѫѵёѱёǼ! ѥёѣѳҁѩƉ>љ@ѫёѱёѳѣѵѷёѫŶ ѫƉ>ѳљȗѱ@ѯƉѳƉѫƉ>љ@ѹƉ>љ@ёѹҁѥёѣѯѹё ȗ>ѫё@ѱёѳțƉѣѵѷёѫŶѫѳљȗțёѷѓ ȕ>џѳ@љƉѥёѣѯѹƉёїљѫŶѫѳљȗƉѫŶѥѯ ѥѷљѩѫŶțѯѯ>ѹ@ѷƉѩѫŶѫљѷѫџ ѵѷљѹљƉё>ѹ@ҁѱƉѥƉљѵљѱљѫё ѥёѡёѳ>ѵѣ@ёț>ѣё@ѫѯѩѣёțѣѱѧё ѫџё>ѹ@ҁѫƉ>љ@ѷƉȝƉҁѩŶѩѯѵȝљ ёѫѯѫțƉѫƉț Ʃѣѵѯѵѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ!! ёѹҁѫѷѯѯѹѫљѫŶѵѣѯѹљѷȝҁѥƉ љѓѯѧѫŶțҁѓѫѣѩёѹȝѯѯѵѕёѳ ѫŶѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶѫŶѳҁѩљȝљљѣѵ țџџѷљёѱѫѯѹѷљȕљѱѷљ ѷѫѡѹѵѣёѫŶѷѯѯѷѯѹѫѯѹџ џѓљѷљѱёљѣѱљѱїѣёѥѯѫѯѵ ѫŶѷљƉѱѧёѫџѱȝѯљѣѵїљљ ѷѯѹљțѵёțѫљѱёǼљѷѯѫƩȝƩѵ љȝѫѱѷџѳƩȗțѳёǼțƩѫѻёљѫŶ țѯѯѹѵљѫёȝѱѣѯѯѹ

1 Over that altar [your minister] shall stand, and thus he shall use 5 my name, and the pious races shall be devoted to it. After him, another person shall present the [fornicators]; and another 10 shall present those who murder children; and yet another, those who sleep with men (and) with abstainers – and the rest of the impurities and crimes and errors. 15 And those who say, ‘We are equal to angels,’ indeed they are the stars that bring all things to completion. For they said to the human races, ‘Behold, 20 god received your sacrifice through a priest,’ that is, the minister of error. But it is the Lord – he who is Lord over the All – who 25 commands that on the last day they will be put to shame.

Among the various textual and hermeneutical problems in this passage, the most difficult are (1) the identity of the figure in the lacuna on line 3, which I have reconstructed as їѣёѥѯѫѯѵ, ‘minister’; (2) the meaning of the Greek verb ѱёѳѣѵѷё (DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ) in lines 8 and 10, and how it relates to the various groups of sinners to which it is connected; and (3) the identity and meaning of “those who say ‘We are equal to angels’” in lines 15–16.68

68

On other specific difficulties, see the notes to page 40 in Appendix B.

64

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

I. The Identity of the Figure in 40.3 The figure in this lacuna has been the object of much speculation.69 The editors of the initial NGS translation did not reconstruct the lacuna, but suggested >ѱёѳѽҁѫѫŶѱѣѥѯѵ@ѩƉѯѵ, “[the archon of this cos]mos.”70 Karen King tentatively suggested >ѱёѳѽҁѫ ѩѱљѽё@ѯѵ, “[the ruler of Cha]os.”71 The editors of the Critical Edition transcribe line 3 as ѫŶƉȟƉ>ѣѱ s@ѱƉѯѵ, reading the slight ink trace after the lacuna as a pi, yet note that >@ѫƉѯѵ or >@ѩƉѯѵ are also possible. In their estimation, it is likely that “a representative of the ‘temple-cult’ criticized in the following lines was mentioned here,” for example an >љѱѣѵѥѯ@ѱƉѯѵ or >їѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ. Brankaer and Bethge follow the Critical Edition’s reading, and reconstruct [ѱѫѯңѫŶљѱѣѵѥѯ]ѱƉѯѵ, “[the great episko]pos”.72 The reconstruction largely depends on how one reads the slight ink trace before omicron. In my estimation, the trace best fits a nu, hence my reconstruction ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣѱљѷѫїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ, “[Your minister].” An examination of the trace and a close comparison with the scribe’s pi, mu and nu reveal that the ink trace most resembles the upper right-hand vertical stroke of nu more than mu or pi. This can be seen by the fact that the scribe’s nu usually has an ink-blot protruding to the left at the top of the right-hand vertical stroke, while no such blotting occurs in mu or pi. Hence [їѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ, ‘minister.’ Jesus’ subsequent reference to ѱїѣёѥѯѫѯѵѫŶѷљƉѱѧёѫџ, “the minister of error” in association with the ‘priest’ (ѯѹџџѓ) in lines 21–23 further corroborates this reading. In addition, I reconstruct the remainder of the lacuna with the plural possessive prefix ѱљѷѫ, ‘your,’ rather than the more generic adjective ѫѯȟ, ‘great’ since at this point in the dialogue Jesus is still addressing the twelve disciples directly, prophesying to them about someone who will officiate over their cult in the future. In this context, Judas uses the term Ǧǫ̾ǬDZǯDZȍin the more generic sense of a religious authority (a cult official) to refer to the clergy of the apostolic churches generally, not the specific office of Deacon. Paul uses the term this way when he refers to the ‘Super Apostles’ in Corinth as Satan’s ministers (Ǧǫ̾ǬDZǯDZǫ) who disguise themselves as “ministers of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:14–15).

69

Cf. Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138, at 125–126. 70 Kasser et al., Gospel of Judas, 27n47. 71 Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 185. 72 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 268.

E. The Future of the Apostolic Cult

65

II. The Meaning of DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ Jesus continues by prophesying that “after this one” (ѩƩѫƩѫѵёѱёǼ), namely the cult minister, a further series of persons (ѥёѣѳҁѩƉ>љ@ѥёѣѯѹё ѥёѣѯѹё), presumably more cult ministers, shall come forth and Dzǣdz ǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ various groups of sinners. This ambiguous Greek verb appears twice in this passage (aspirated once as ѱёѳțƉѣѵѷё), and seems implied at least a third time (lines 11–12), all in connection with the fornicators, child-murderers, and those who sleep with men. As the editors of the Critical Edition note, “the exact meaning of ѱёѳț ѣѵѷё here and in the following lines is unclear.”73 Various translators have interpreted it to mean that these persons will ‘stand there,’ ‘arise from,’ ‘take the side of,’ ‘stand up for,’ ‘join,’ ‘associate with,’ or ‘take a position among’ the sinners.74 I suggest that we understand DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ in its transitive sense ‘to present’ or ‘offer’ as it often signifies in contexts pertaining to ritual sacrifice.75 Paul uses the term precisely this way when he exhorts his Roman audience to “present (DzǣdzǣǵǶΏǵǣǫ) your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your rational worship,” and “no longer present (DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǧǶǧ) your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present (DzǣdzǣǵǶ͂ǵǣǶǧ) your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (12:1; 6:13).76 In this sense, the various cult ministers will come 73 Critical Edition, 199. Cf. Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10 (2006), 9n13: “Die exakte Bedeutung von Dzǣdz ǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ ist hier dunkel. Ich fasse es als intransitiv auf. Syntaktisch möglich ist auch die Auffassung als transitives Verb. Die ‘Hurer’, ‘Kindesmörder’ etc. sind dann Objekt zu DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ. / The exact meaning of DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ is obscure here. I regard it as intransitive. The concept is also syntactically possible as a transitive verb. The ‘fornicator,’ ‘child-killer’ etc. are, then, objects of DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ.” 74 NGS 2006, 27, ‘stand there from’ or ‘represent’; Critical Edition, 199, ‘stand up from” or in French (242) ‘s’associera à’ (join); Plisch, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” 9, ‘beigesellen’ (associate with); Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 269 and 336, ‘hinzutreten von’ (appear from); Cherix, “Évangile de Judas,” 4, ‘prendra place d’entre’ (take a position from among); DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 73, ‘stand up for’; Gathercole, Gospel of Judas, 76, ‘arise’; Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 113, ‘take the side of.’ 75 See Dzǣdz̈́ǵǶǩǮǫ in G. H. W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 1041; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, trans. and revised by Williams F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 628 (1d). 76 Paul continues: “Do you not know that if you present (DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǧǶǧ) yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? . . . Just as you once presented (DzǣdzǧǵǶ͂ǵǣǶǧ) your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present (DzǣdzǣǵǶ͂ǵǣǶǧ) your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (Romans 6:16–19 NRSV). For further discussion of Paul’s use of DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ in Romans, see Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 243–246.

66

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

and present (that is, ritually offer) the various sinners. Indeed, Judas uses the verb DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ transitively in another passage (recovered among the fragments from Ohio), where the context clarifies that the one to whom the offerings are presented is the disciples’ god: although a lacuna obscures who offers the sacrifice, Jesus speaks about them “bringing their races and presenting them to Saklas (љѹљѣѫљѫљѹѕљѫƉ>љёљ@ѹѱёѳѣѵѷёѩѩѯѯѹ ѫŶѵёѥѧё>ѵ@55.4–6). According to this interpretation, the Coptic particle ѫŶ accompanying ѱёѳѣѵѷё in Judas 40.8–15 is a direct object marker, so that Jesus prophesies that the series of future cult ministers will ‘present’ people from among the various groups of sinners – fornicators, child-killers, those who lie with men and with would-be abstainers (ѫљѷѫџѵѷљѹљ),77 and those who commit the rest of the “impurities and crimes and errors.” Whereas in the temple vision, Judas’s author criticized the priests (the disciples) for their immorality, he now turns the same criticism against the sacrifices themselves. The members of the apostolic churches whom its future ministers shall present to their God are not pure and holy, as Paul admonished them to be, but thoroughly immoral, impure, criminal and erroneous. They are an impure sacrifice. III. Those who say ‘We are equal to angels’ After Jesus discusses the cultic ministers who will present various kinds of sinners, he refers to an ambiguous group who claim equality with angels: And those who say, ‘We are equal to angels,’ indeed they are the stars which bring all things to completion. For (ѕёѳ) they said to the human races, ‘Behold, god received your sacrifice through a priest,’ that is, the minister of error.

What does the claim to be “equal to angels” mean in this context? Peter Nagel suggests that it refers to sexual asceticism, since some Christian ascetics described their life of chastity as being equal to angels based on an interpretation of Luke 20:35–36, that those worthy of the resurrection “neither marry nor are given in marriage; indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels (̆ǵ̾ǥǥǧǭDZȍ) and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.” 78 According to Nagel’s interpretation, the Christian ascetics are an additional target on the list of sinners whom Jesus criticzed in the previous lines (fornicators, etc).

77

On this reading, see the note to 40.11–13 in Appendix B. Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” 245n93, with reference to his study of Christian asceticism, Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Mönchtums (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), 34–48. 78

E. The Future of the Apostolic Cult

67

However, equality with the angels can signify more than sexual asceticism. I suggest that in the immediate context of the Gospel of Judas – in which Jesus is discussing sacrifices, cult ministers, and priests – the boast of being equal to angels signifies that such persons claim for themselves a priestly ministry equal to the angels who serve God as his heavenly priests. The idea that angels serve as priests appears frequently in apocalyptic literature: just as human priests minister to God in his earthly temple, the angelic priests minister in his heavenly temple. 79 The people whom Judas criticizes, then, can be interpreted as members of the apostolic clergy who spoke of themselves as the earthly counterparts of the angelic priesthood. By the end of the second century, Christians were already likening the ranks of ecclesiastical office to the angelic hierarchies. Thus Clement of Alexandria says: For indeed, I think that the ranks of bishop, presbyter, and deacon here in the church are imitations of angelic glory and that arrangement which the scriptures say awaits those who have lived in the footsteps of the apostles in the fulfillment of righteousness according to the Gospel.80

According to Clement, not only are the ecclesiastical offices patterned after the angelic ranks, but Christians who exercise the virtue of apatheia are “here already equal to angels (̆ǵ̾ǥǥǧǭDZȍ)” and thus qualified for such a distinguished office: such a person speeds along to God “like the apostles”; may be “enrolled in the chosen body of the apostles”; and is “in reality a presbyter of the Church and a true minister (Ǧǫ̾ǬDZǯDZȍ) of the will of God… enrolled in the presbyterate because he is righteous.”81 Judas’s criticism of “those who say ‘We are equal to angels’” may, then, be understood as a reference to apostolic clergy who claimed a priestly office like the angels as mediators between God and humanity. This interpretation clarifies Jesus’ following comment, that such people told the human races, “Behold, god received your sacrifice through a priest.” Jesus then explains that such a priest is “the minister (їѣёѥѯѫƉѯѵ) of error.” 79 For example, 1 Enoch 14–15; Revelation 8:3–5; 3 Baruch 14; Testament of Levi 3:7; and the Shirot Shabbat scrolls from Qumran and Masada. For discussion, see Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 20–23, 33–36; Carol Newsom, “‘He has established for himself priests’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence Schiffman (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 101–120. 80 Clement, Stromata VI, 13,107.2–3 (ed. Descourtieux, Sources Chrétiennes 446, p. 274): ˩Dzǧ̓ Ǭǣ̓ ǣ̆ ˩ǯǶǣάǪǣ ǬǣǶ̽ Ƕ́ǯ ˩ǬǬǭǩǵǡǣǯ DzdzDZǬDZDzǣ̓ ˩DzǫǵǬǾDzǻǯ DzdzǧǵǤǷǶǟdzǻǯ ǦǫǣǬǾǯǻǯ ǮǫǮǠǮǣǶǣ DZ̋Ǯǣǫ ˙ǥǥǧǭǫǬΏǴ ǦǾǰǩǴ Ǭ˙ǬǧǡǯǩǴ ǶΏǴ DZ̅ǬDZǯDZǮǡǣǴ ǶǷǥǹǞǯDZǷǵǫǯ ˸ǯ ˙ǯǣǮǟǯǧǫǯ Ǹǣǵ̓ǯ ǣ̆ ǥdzǣǸǣ̓ ǶDZ͇Ǵ ǬǣǶϋ ̉ǹǯDZǴ Ƕιǯ ˙DzDZǵǶǾǭǻǯ ˩ǯ ǶǧǭǧǫȀǵǧǫ ǦǫǬǣǫDZǵǿǯǩǴǬǣǶ̽Ƕͅǧ̡ǣǥǥǟǭǫDZǯǤǧǤǫǻǬǾǶǣǴ 81 Clement, Stromata VI, 13, 105.1–106.2.

68

Chapter 2: The Twelve Disciples

Jesus does not, however, deny that such people are equal to angels. Instead, he subversively agrees with them: “indeed they are the stars who bring all things to completion.” Here, Judas draws upon an established apocalyptic tradition that represents fallen angels as stars who lead humanity into sin.82 Thus the angels with whom the clergy claim equality are, Jesus asserts, the wicked angel-stars familiar from the apocalypses. In summary, after Jesus interprets the disciples’ dream, he delivers a damning prophecy about the future of their cult, its leaders, and their sinful offerings. Jesus tells them that their cult minister (>ѱљѷѫŶїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ) will mislead the pious races by using his name over the altar. After this figure, additional cult ministers (ѥёѣѳҁѩƉ>љ@ѥёѣѯѹёѥёѣѯѹƉё) shall come and ‘present’ all kinds of sinners to their false god. Therefore both the priests and the sacrificial offerings of the disciples’ cult are impure. Moreover, Jesus criticizes the future clergy for claiming that they are “equal to angels” in their priestly ministry of mediation between God and humanity. Such a priest is the minister of error, and the angels with whom they claim equality are the fallen angels, the stars, who lead humanity into sin. Yet in good apocalyptic fashion, Jesus concludes his prophecy by promising that divine justice will eventually be executed upon evil doers: on the last day, the Lord of the universe shall put all these people to shame.

F. Conclusion The Gospel of Judas’s historical value does not lie in its portrayal of Judas Iscariot, as fascinating as that may be, but in its subversive portrayal of the twelve disciples as confused, ignorant, spiritually weak, and thoroughly immoral. This is one of the most aggressive attacks on the twelve disciples known in the Christian tradition. It thus adds to our knowledge of a broader Christian culture in the second century which criticized not individual disciples (a doubting Thomas or a denying Peter) but the entire notion that the Twelve were the legitimate transmitters of Jesus’ teaching and the foundations of ecclesiastical authority. We know that other Christians harbored similar objections to the twelve disciples. The short ending of Mark’s Gospel was arguably intended to undermine any privileged position that the Twelve might have enjoyed after Jesus’ ascension (especially that of Peter, who abandons Jesus at his arrest, then denies him three times). Despite the efforts of Luke and Matthew to rehabilitate the Twelve, the negative attitude toward them persisted into the second century, where the subversive critique took on a new focus by 82

On the fallen angel-stars in Jewish apocalyptic, see note to 37.4–5 in Appendix B; cf. 54.17–55.6.

F. Conclusion

69

attacking their moral character. According to Tertullian, Marcion insisted that Paul’s letter to the Galatians “rebukes even the apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” By criticizing their poor moral behavior, Marcion sought to undermine the credibility of Gospels written in the names of the apostles and their ‘apostolic’ successors (apostolicorum).83 The Gospel of Judas is thus further evidence of how closely related some Sethian Christians were to the wider Christian community in the second century. Instead of understanding its author as a ‘Gnostic’ who wrote from outside the Christian church, I understand him as someone intricately involved in the church socially and emotionally. He was evidently deeply concerned with the question of ecclesiastical leadership and angered by the clergy’s claim to unique authority in the churches. Whereas Ignatius asserted that “the only valid Eucharist is one over which the bishop presides,” Judas’s author might have maintained the opposite: that any Eucharist presided over by someone claiming exclusive clerical authority is invalid. This contentious scenario does not imply the existence of two distinct communities, Sethian and apostolic, but the kind of schismatic controversy that led to this division.

83

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.3.2 (ed. Evans): ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nominee eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum. For reports about similar criticism of the apostles, see Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.2.2; 3.12.12; 3.13.1.



Chapter 3

The Story of Creation A. Introduction In between the dialogue sections of the Gospel of Judas, Jesus takes Judas Iscariot apart from the other disciples and delivers to him a lengthy revelation about the origins of the universe. He begins by describing the true god as an invisible Spirit who dwells in a ‘boundless realm (aeon)’ and is attended by an angel named Autogenes (‘the Self-Generated one’). After calling forth four angels to attend him, Autogenes goes on to create even more realms, twelve altogether, each with a ruling luminary. The twelve realms then serve as the residence for the heavenly archetypes of humanity, Adamas and his son Seth, as well as the holy race, called ‘the incorruptible race of Seth.’ The realms of Autogenes are then further arranged into a numerically harmonious organization: from out of the 12 realms Autogenes produces 72 lights with 72 heavens, which in turn produce 360 lights with 360 firmaments – all filled with hosts of worshipping angels and spirits. After this description of the heavenly realms, Jesus explains how apostate angels came to rule over the lower realm of ‘chaos and the underworld,’ and how they fashioned the mortal bodies of earthly Adam and Eve after a ‘likeness and image’ which they saw in the heavens above them (cf. Gen 1:26; 2:7). Finally, Jesus concludes his story by explaining how the chief of the apostate angels limited the lifespan of Adam and his descendents. Form-critical analysis suggests that Judas’s author compiled his creation story by excerpting and adapting material from longer, more elaborate traditions available to him in multiple written sources.1 Scholars have ob 

1 For example, the author knows the figure of Barbelo (35.17) but then omits her from the theogonic section by replacing her with a generic cloud (47.14–19). He summarizes Autogenes’s creation of twelve realms and lights by narrating only the first two (48.1–18) but then subsequently refers to all twelve (49.7, 18–20). He knows the longer tradition that twelve angels came forth to rule over chaos and the underworld (51.5–6, 20–21) but only provides the names of the first five (52.4–14). He also appears to know the longer Sethian interpretation of Gen 1:26–7 and 2:7 – that the angels fashioned earthly Adam after ‘the likeness and image’ which appeared to them in the sky – since he narrates the creation but not the appearance of the image (52.14–19).



A. Introduction

71

served that Judas has a close literary relationship with traditions preserved in other ancient sources, especially the treatises Eugnostos (NHCs III,3; V,1), the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (NHCs III,2; IV,2), the Apocryphon of John (NHCs II,1; III,1; IV,1; BG,2) and its parallel in Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies 1.29.1–4. Judas’s description of the Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, and his four angels closely relates to traditions found in the Apocryphon of John and Irenaeus.2 Its numerical organization of the cosmos into divisions of 12, 72 and 360 lights, heavens and firmaments has verbatim literary agreement with Eugnostos. And its account of how Eleleth, Nebro and Saklas established angelic rule over chaos has instances of literary agreement with the Holy Book. Although it is tempting to hypothesize that Judas’s author drew directly from Eugnostos, the Holy Book, and the Apocryphon of John, it would be more cautious to speak of common-source traditions, especially since we do not know with certainty when any of these treatises were composed or arrived at their current forms.3 Our only extant manuscripts of these texts come from no earlier than the fourth century, and with the exception of the Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.31.1), there are no testimonies about any of them circulating in earlier periods. In contrast to more elaborate Sethian mythological treatises like the Apocryphon of John and the Holy Book, the Gospel of Judas’s brief creation story, which reads like a bricolage of traditions known from other sources, has led to scholarly disagreement over whether it represents a version of early and underdeveloped Sethian thought, or, to the contrary, a relatively late, even “corrupt” account. In his commentary on the original English translation, Marvin Meyer suggests that “the Gospel of Judas is representative of early Sethian thought, and the Sethian themes of the gospel are not fully developed.”4 Others scholars, however, argue that a num  2 The closest terminological parallels between Judas and the Apocryphon of John are their descriptions of Autogenes coming forth for the attendance (ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ) of the Invisible Spirit, and the four angels coming forth for the attendance (ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ) of Autogenes. Compare Judas 47.18 and 47.24–25 to Apocryphon of John NHC III 11.5 and 11.19. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.29.2, only extant in a Latin translation) similarly speaks of four luminaries who come forth “for the attendance” (ad circumstantiam) of Autogenes. 3 Disagreements among the multiple extant manuscripts of the Apocryphon of John and Eugnostos demonstrate that they underwent redaction during transmission. The two extant manuscripts of the Holy Book, on the other hand, show far less disagreement with one another, even though they represent independent Coptic translations of a Greek Vorlage. 4 Marvin Meyer, “Judas and the Gnostic Connection,” in The Gospel of Judas, ed. R. Kasser, M. Meyer, G. Wurst (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2006), 143. Cf. idem, “When the Sethians were Young: The Gospel of Judas in the Second Century,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April



72

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

ber of allegedly confused passages and points of departure from ‘genuine’ Sethian mythology indicate that Judas contains a late and defective account of Sethian myth, which may even be an interpolation into a hypothetical proto-Judas. Gesine Schenke Robinson concludes that: It is so far removed from classical Sethianism, its traditional mythological material so substantially curtailed, and the Christian-Gnostic features elsewhere in the book so prominent, that the Gospel of Judas in its present form seems to be a rather distant offshoot of Sethianism . . . the neo-Sethian insertion is already a corrupted and truncated version of the Sethian system, devoid of its earlier constitutive parts.5

Similarly, John Turner finds that “the entire Sethian mythical section is a late and confused product, cobbled together from various sources, and secondarily inserted into the Gospel of Judas.”6 However, analyses of the Gospel of Judas’s myth in terms of underdevelopment or corruption rely on problematic assumptions about what constitutes ‘fully developed’ and ‘genuine’ Sethian thought. As Hans-Martin Schenke cautioned in his seminal article on the typological category of Sethianism, one should not be too hasty to conclude anything about a text based on what is absent from it, since its content largely depends on its genre and the peculiar aims of its author.7 Following Schenke’s observation, I prefer to interpret differences among Sethian sources primarily in terms of the goals and commitments of individual authors rather than indications of early development or later corruption of an assumed ‘genuine’ tradition (which has, at any rate, been typologically constructed by modern scholars in the first place). While Sethian texts clearly share unique features (e.g. dramatis personae, mythemes, and exegetical traditions) they do not share an identical theology or mythological account. For example, two foundational works of Sethian myth, the Apocryphon of John and the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, offer such different pictures of the primordial trinity, the heavenly denizens, Sophia, the creation of the world, and the process of salvation, that I find it rather difficult to generalize about what constitutes ‘the Sethian system’ or ‘genuine’ Sethianism.   DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 60: Judas’s myth appears “in a fairly simple and unadorned fashion that may suggest a rather early stage of development.” 5 Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 81–82. 6 John Turner, “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas,” in Codex Judas Papers, 101. 7 Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1981), vol. 2, 599.



A. Introduction

73

Furthermore, analyses of Judas’s myth in terms of early or late Sethian thought unnecessarily assume a unilinear model of development according to which early myths show signs of simplicity, while relatively later myths become progressively decadent and confused. I agree with Michael Williams that such linear models are not helpful for trying to understand the continuities and differences among the range of material in the Sethian literary corpus, nor the underlying histories of their authors.8 Instead, I prefer to think of the sources somewhat more synchronically, especially since we know so little about their actual dates of composition and redactional histories.9 I imagine that what we possess in our fourth-century manuscripts is probably the surface of a much larger pool of mythological traditions circulating in the second and third centuries from which different authors drew and adapted material for their own ends. My analysis of the Gospel of Judas’s myth, and its differences from other accounts, therefore assumes that its unique features reflect its author’s specific aims and theological commitments rather than corruption of a ‘genuine’ Sethian system. The author of Judas was a great polemicist, not a great theologian. His goal was not to compose an elaborate new theology comparable to the Apocryphon of John and Holy Book, but to provide a basic narrative of creation from the primordial Spirit to the formation of earthly humanity that would complement Jesus’ teachings in the dialogue sections. Judas’s creation story provides the mythological context necessary to understand the origins of the false god worshipped by the twelve disciples, the polarization between the holy and human races, and the mortal predicament in which the human races exist. Moreover, it is difficult to regard the mythical section as a secondary insertion, since the subsequent dialogue between Jesus and Judas Iscariot assumes knowledge of the myth itself. For example, Jesus refers back to specific characters such as Saklas (54.21; 55.10; 56.14) and Adam (56.6; 57.12), both of whom he first introduces in the myth. The myth thus functions as a catalyst for a further round of questions and answers between Judas and Jesus in the second half of the dialogue. After Jesus concludes the story by explaining how Saklas limited the lifespan of Adam and his descendents, Judas goes on to ask how long people shall live (53.8–9),   8 Michael Williams, “Sethianism,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 54: “It is probably unnecessary and unjustified to posit, even hypothetically, a more or less linear history . . . The reality was likely far more complicated.” 9 For the Gospel of Judas, the theogony of the Apocryphon of John, and the apocalypses of Zostrianos and Allogenes, we have external testimonies that these texts were already in circulation in the second and early third centuries (assuming that they are roughly the same as the copies we possess). But we can only make the vaguest guesses as to when other Sethian texts were first composed.



74

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

whether the human spirit dies (53.16–17), what the human races shall do (54.13–15), and finally, whether baptism in the name of Jesus has any effect (55.23–25). Judas’s preoccupation with humanity’s short lifespan, fate, and predicament under the dominion of apostate angels comes as a response to what Jesus revealed to him in the mythological section. Far from being a corrupt, secondary insertion into a hypothetical protoJudas, I maintain that the Gospel of Judas is the work of a single author, and that its brief myth, though compiled from various sources, can be understood as a coherent story of creation. In this chapter, I offer suggestions for how to make sense of the passages in Judas’s myth that some interpreters have found most difficult and allegedly corrupt. In some cases my solutions involve new readings of the manuscript where obscurities due to lacunae have given rise to speculation and problematic reconstruction by modern editors. In other cases, I offer different interpretations of passages which some commentators regard as bizarre in comparison with other Sethian texts.

B. The Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, and his Four Attendants The Gospel of Judas’s creation story begins with Jesus inviting Judas to receive revelation about the realm of the great Invisible Spirit: Jesus said, “[Come], and I will teach you about the [mysteries] . . . For there is a great and boundless realm (aeon) whose size no angelic race has seen, with [a great] Invisible Spirit [in] it, whom angel eye has not seen, nor inner thought received, nor has he been called by any name. In that place a luminous cloud appeared. And he (the Invisible Spirit)10 said, ‘Let an angel come forth for my attendance (ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ).’ And a great angel, Autogenes, the god of the light, came out of the cloud. And four other angels came into being from another cloud on his behalf, and they came into being for the attendance (ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ) of the angelic Autogenes.” (47.1 –26)

The author of Judas contextualizes the entire revelation in terms of Paul’s famous formula about the mystery of God in 1 Corinthians 2:7–9 (ultimately derived from Isaiah 64–65).11 The appearance of this formula in a number of early Christian text, including the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Gospel of Thomas, indicates that many Christians found it a convincing  

10 It is clear from the masculine conjugation of the verb that the Invisible Spirit speaks, not the cloud, which is grammatically feminine. 11 Paul, 1 Cor 2:9: “what eye has not seen, nor ear heard (cf. Isaiah 64:3 LXX), and what has not arisen upon the human heart (cf. Isaiah 65:16 LXX), what god has prepared for those who love him.” Cf. Isaiah 64:3 (LXX): “from the aeon we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen a god, except for you and your deeds that you shall perform for those who wait for mercy.”



B. The Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, and his Four Attendants

75

way of legitimizing their hidden truths. Indeed, Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, chastised Christians who in the fourth century still cited the formula to support the authenticity of their revelations.12 The description of the Invisible Spirit as one who has never been called by any name resonates with Judas’s confession earlier in the dialogue, that he knows the realm from which Jesus has been sent but is “not worthy to proclaim the name of he who sent you” (35.18–20). As John Turner observes, Sethian texts frequently characterize the Invisible Spirit as unnamable and incomprehensible.13 Yet Turner also emphasizes that Judas’s portrayal of the Spirit dwelling within an aeon appears to be a departure from other Sethian theologies found in the Apocryphon of John, Zostrianos, and Allogenes, which characterize him with extensive apophatic theology as completely transcendent, existing before and above everything. I agree that Judas shows little interest in an elaborate apophatic descriptions of the Spirit; however, its locative portrayal of him dwelling in an aeon is by no means unique in Sethian theology. The Holy Book also describes the Spirit as “he who came from the heights” and is himself “the aeon of the aeons” (III 40.14; 41.5). Similarly, the brief treatise Norea portrays the Father as “dwelling in the heights above . . . light dwelling [in the] heights” (IX 27.11–15). Even in the middle of its long negative theology, the Apocryphon of John positively asserts that “his aeon is indestructible” (II 4.10–11 and parallels). There is, then, nothing unusual about Judas’s description of the Spirit inhabiting “a great, boundless aeon” (ѯƉ>ѹ@ѫѯȟ ѫŶёѣҁѫѯѹёѷёѳƉџȝȗ). We may even identify this aeon with “the immortal aeon of Barbelo” (ѱёѣҁѫѫŶѷѓёѳѓџѧҁѱёѡёѫёѷѯѵ) mentioned in the preceding dialogue (35.18–19). 14 The idea that the Father dwells in the aeon of Barbelo already appears in the second-century sources known to Irenaeus, who reports that the gnostikoi believed in a primordial Father existing in an “unaging aeon, in a virginal Spirit whom they name Barbelon.”15   12

See Martyrdom of Polycarp 2; Gospel of Thomas 17; Prayer of the Apostle Paul (NHC I,1); Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter. 13 Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 104, esp. note 25. 14 Turner and Schenke Robinson argue that Judas masculinizes Barbelo by turning her into an aeon, which they interpret as an indication of late Sethian thought. See Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 105 and 99n8; Schenke Robinson, “Relationship,” 76n64. However, the text clearly reads ѱёѣҁѫѫŶѷѓёѳѓџѧҁ. While the aeon is grammatically masculine (ѱ ёѣҁѫ), Barbelo remains a feminine figure as indicated by the feminine definite article (ѷ ѓёѳѓџѧҁ). I understand the relationship as one of possession (the aeon of Barbelo) not identification. 15 Adv. haer. 1.29.1, 5–8 (ed. Rousseau-Doutreleau): Quidam enim eorum aeonem quendem numquam senescentem in virginali spiritu subiciunt quem Barbelon nominant. Ubi esse patrem quondam innominalibem dicunt, voluisse autem hunc manifestare se ipsi



76

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

Scholars who argue that the Gospel of Judas corrupts ‘genuine’ Sethian theology emphasize that it describes the figure of Autogenes in a way that differs from other Sethian texts.16 Although Judas and the Apocryphon of John clearly share the tradition that Autogenes came forth for the ‘attendance’ (ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ) of the Invisible Spirit,17 Judas also refers to him with epithets not found in other Sethian writings, namely “the great angel” and “the god of light.” Admittedly, other Sethian texts do not identify Autogenes as an angel; yet such a generic title hardly constitutes confusion on the part of Judas’s author or corruption of Sethian tradition. Turner himself observes that Judas uses the term ‘angel’ quite liberally to describe a range of figures who inhabit both the heavenly and mortal realms.18 Moreover, Autogenes’s title “god of light” is consonate with Sethian tradition. Other texts frequently refer to Autogenes as a god (ѫѯѹѷљ) and closely associate him with light. The Apocryphon of John, Holy Book and Norea refer to him as “the divine Autogenes,” the “self-begotten god,” the “god of truth.”19 The Apocryphon of John in particular emphasizes his divine luminosity: the Invisible Spirit begets Autogenes as “a spark of light . . . the pure light,” rejoices over him as “the light that came into being,” and then appoints him as “god over everything.” 20 Judas’s identification of Autogenes as “the god of light” is in continuity with this Sethian theology. 21   Barbeloni. “Some of them propose that there is a certain unaging aeon in a virginal spirit whom they name Barbelon. They say that a certain unnameable Father is there too, (and) that he desired to reveal himself to this Barbelon.” According to Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 13 [ed. Rousseau-Doutreleau]), who drew from the now lost Greek original of Irenaeus’s epitome, ̢Dz̀ǪǧǯǶDZ ǥ̽dz ǣ̅ιǯ̾ Ƕǫǯǣ ˙ǯȀǭǧǪdzDZǯ ˩ǯ DzǣdzǪǧǯǫǬκ Ǧǫ̾ǥDZǯǶǣ Dzǯǧ͈ǮǣǶǫ ̘ DžǣdzǤǩǭ͉Ǫ̕ǯDZǮ̾ǨDZǷǵǫ, “They propose that there is some indestructible aeon in a virginal spirit whom they name Barbeloth.” The following lines in Theodoret’s account do not, however, speak of the Father dwelling there as well, so that the aeon is likely to be identified with the Father himself. 16 Schenke Robinson, “Relationship of the Gospel of Judas,” 77–78; Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 106. 17 ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ: NHC III 11.5. The versions of Ap. John in BG, II and IV use the equivalent Coptic term ёțљѳёѷȗŶ (cf. Crum 537b). 18 Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 102. 19 ѱёѹѷѯѕљѫџѵ ѫŶѫѯѹѷљ Ap. John NHC II 7.11, 16–17, 19–20; III 11.4–7; IV 11.7–8, 11–12; Holy Book NHC III 68.16; Norea NHC IX 28.6. ѱѫѯѹѷљѫŶёѹѷѯѕљѫџѵ Ap. John BG 32.4–5, 8–9. Cf. ѫѯѹѷљљȝѫŶѫŶѥёѫѣѩ NHC III 11.12; ѱѫѯѹѷљѩѩџљ BG 32.14ѱѫѯѹѷљѫŶѷѩџљ NHC III 55.6; cf. IV 60.3 >ѱѫѯѹ@ѷљțѫŶѯѹѩѫŶѷѩљ. 20 NHC II 6.13–20; III 11.10–11; cf. II 7.24. 21 Irenaeus similarly reports that the Father and Barbelo gave birth to heavenly Christ, who is also simply called “the Light” and “Great Light” (Adv. haer. 1.29.1.14–16, 23). Autogenes is then emitted as “a repraesentationem of the Great Light” (1.29.2).



B. The Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, and his Four Attendants

77

Judas’s description of the four angels who attend Autogenes has also raised concerns about the genuine Sethian character of its myth and its author’s familiarity with Sethian theology. As nearly all scholars recognize, the four angels reflect a common Sethian tradition that Autogenes is attended by four heavenly beings, whom Irenaeus and many of the Coptic treatises describe as ‘four luminaries’ (quattuor luminaria, ȗѷѯѯѹ ѫŶѻҁѵѷџѳ).22 But according to Turner, the fact that Judas identifies them as ‘angels’ rather than ‘luminaries’ suggests that “that the author is not very familiar with the broad range of Sethian literature.”23 However, although Sethian treatises do frequently refer to Autogenes’s four attendants as ‘luminaries,’ some evidence suggests that Sethians described them with other titles as well, including ‘helpers,’ ‘commanders,’ and ‘angels’ as in Judas. Thus scholars have suggested that the short tractate Norea probably alludes to the four luminaries as “the four holy helpers” (NHC IX 28.27–28).24 The treatise Melchizedeck calls them both luminaries and commanders, and refers to the fourth luminary Eleleth as a “commander-in-chief” (ёѳѽѣѵѷѳёѷџѕѯѵ 17.11–19). Moreover, at least one of the second-century sources known to Irenaeus evidently characterized the luminaries as angels since Irenaeus refers to one of them as “the first angel who stands by the side of Monogenes.” 25 The various versions of the Apocryphon of John similarly identify the luminary Armozel as “the first angel” (NHC II 8.5; III 12.1; IV 12.15) and “the angel of light” (BG 33.9–10), while the Hypostasis of the Archons calls Eleleth “the great angel” (NHC II 93.8–9). 26 There is, then, nothing fundamentally unusual about Judas’s reference to four ‘angels’ who attend Autogenes.  

22 Ireaneus, Adv. haer. 1.29.2; Ap. John NHC II 7.30–8.28; Holy Book NHC III 51.18–19; Tri. Morph. NHC XIII 38.35–39.5; Melchizedek NHC IX 6.3–5; Zostrianos NHC VIII 51.17–18. 23 Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 106. 24 Birger Pearson observes that “Norea’s own salvation is aided by the intercession of the ‘four holy helpers’ . . . who are easily identifiable as the four ‘luminaries’ of Sethian Gnosticism.” See Pearson, “Introduction” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James Robinson (HarperCollins, 1990), 445. 25 Adv. haer. 1.29.4: deinde ex primo angelo qui adstat Monogeni. An abrupt shift in Irenaeus’s terminology between 1.29.1–3 and 1.29.4 suggests that he drew from different source when composing his epitome. His language of four luminaria who come forth for the attendance (ad circumstantiam) of Autogenes in 1.29.1–3 suddenly changes in 1.29.4 to “the first angel who attends (adstat) Monogenes.” 26 Apocryphon of John, NHC II 8.4–8: ѷѽёѳѣѵ їљ љƉѵȕѯѯѱ țёțѷѫŶ ѱёѣҁѫ ѩŶѻҁѵѷџѳёѳѩѯѝџѧљѷљѱёǼѱљѱȕѯѳѱѫŶёѕѕљѧѯѵ, “Grace exists with the aeon of the luminary Armozel, that is, the first angel.” Alternatively, Turner (“Sethian Myth,” 106n31) maintains that “the first angel” refers not to the luminary Armozel, but to the aeon Grace (ѷѽёѳѣѵ).



78

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

Although Judas’s theogony is quite brief in comparison to other Sethian writings, I do not find its description of the Invisible Spirit, Autogenes, or his four angelic attendants to be a major departure from or corruption of Sethian theology as some scholars have emphasized. Its brevity may be explained on the basis that the focus of Judas’s myth is not on the supreme Spirit, but on the demonic world rulers who appear later in the narrative. Judas’s author did not intend to supply an elaborate apophatic theology as found in longer Sethian texts which aim to guide readers to a deeper understanding of god. Instead, his goal was to compose a polemical tractate which, among other points, juxtaposed true divinity (the Invisible Spirit and his attendant Autogenes) with the false god worshipped by the twelve disciples.

C. The Absence of Barbelo and a Family Trinity The theogony of the Gospel of Judas does, however, depart from other Sethian treatises in one striking way: there is a conspicuous absence of the divine figure Barbelo and the family language that Sethian texts often use to describe the supreme Sethian trinity as a Father, Mother, and Child. The Holy Book and Apocryphon of John portray Barbelo as the consort of the Invisible Spirit and the mother of the heavenly child. Furthermore, these texts use procreative language to describe the child’s origins. In the Apocryphon of John, the Spirit and Barbelo conceive and give birth to Autogenes. He is not only identified as the attendant of the Spirit, as in Judas, but also as the Spirit’s ‘offspring’ (ȝѱѯ) and ‘son’ (ȕџѳљ).27 In contrast, Judas’s theogony lacks both the figure of Barbelo and the language of a family relationship.  

27 Ap. John NHC II 6.17; 7.17. Autogenes does not, however, always plays the role of child in the Sethian trinity. Scholars frequently cite the Apocryphon of John as the archetypical Sethian myth which identifies Autogenes as both the child and Christ (NHC III 11.6–7; BG 32.8–9; II.19–20; IV 11.15–16). However, the much more elaborate theology in the Holy Book presents a quite different picture. There, the child of the Invisible Spirit and Barbelo is not Autogenes, but the Triple-Male Child, who is also identified as Christ. The figure of Autogenes appears later in the Holy Book’s narrative after many other characters (some of whom Ap. John does not even know: e.g., Triple-Male Child, Youel, and Esephech). Furthermore, whereas Ap. John identifies Autogenes as the heavenly Christ, the Holy Book portrays him as the child of Christ (NHC IV 59.29–60.11). In Irenaeus’s epitome as well, Christ is the child of the Father and Barbelon, while Autogenes is produced later as a representation of him. Such differences among Sethian theologies make it difficult to generalize about “the Sethian system,” and should remind us that the Apocryphon of John is only one of various accounts in the Sethian tradition.



C. The Absence of Barbelo and a Family Trinity

79

Given the fact that the author of Judas explicitly names Barbelo earlier in the dialogue (35.15), her absence here suggests that he deliberately omitted her from the theogony. As John Turner observes, the author appears to have substituted Barbelo with the more generic image of a cloud. Instead of giving birth to a son, the Invisible Spirit merely summons an angel to attend him, and Autogenes comes forth from the cloud. It is even more curious that this cloudy substitution appears to be part of a larger pattern in Judas’s myth. Later in the cosmogonic narrative, Judas refers to an anonymous cloud from which the apostate angels Nebro and Saklas emerge, while the parallel story in the Holy Book explicitly names the cloud as Sophia herself. If Sophia appeared in the author of Judas’s source(s), as suggested by the parallel in the Holy Book, then he once again omitted a feminine figure in exchange for a nameless cloud.28 Scholars have pointed to the absence of Barbelo as a principle example of how Judas corrupts ‘genuine’ Sethian theology. 29 However, I suggest that such an omission should be understood in terms of theological diversity and disagreement among Sethians in the second century. If the author deliberately omitted Barbelo and Sophia from his creation story, it may be because he advocated a form of patriarchal theology shared among his Jewish and Christian contemporaries who also omitted feminine figures like Sophia from their pantheons. Scholars have long observed that early Christian Logos theologies assimilate the feminine character of Sophia, the daughter of god, to the masculine Logos-Christ, son of god. 30 While Sophia played a prominent role in the cosmologies of influential Jewish thinkers during the Second Temple period (e.g., ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo), she is virtually absent from Pauline and Johannine theologies already in the first century C.E.31   28

Judas’s author may have followed a Sethian tradition of identifying female figures as clouds. While Barbelo herself is not associated with a cloud in other Sethian myths, the Holy Book refers to Adamas’s mother, Meirothoe, as “the cloud of the great light” (NHC III 49.1–4), and later identifies Sophia as a cloud (III 56.26, 57.11). See John Turner “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition,” in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, ed. Madeleine Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 197. 29 Turner “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 197; idem, “Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas,” 99; Schenke Robinson, “Relationship,” 77. 30 For example, John 1; 1 Cor 8:16; 2 Cor 4:4; Phil 2:5–6; Col 1:15–17; Heb 1:2–3; cf. Matthew 11:25–30. On the assimilation of Sophia’s character to Christ/Logos, see C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1953; 1968), 274–277; J. G. D. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1980) 163–212. The Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5), probably composed in the third century C.E., also assimilates the Sophia of Valentinian mythology to the Logos. 31 See Peter Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to Early Kabbalah (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 6–7, 19–57.



80

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

However, the fact that Judas’s author does not identify Autogenes as Christ or call him the son of the Invisible Spirit, as does the Apocryphon of John, suggests that he was not adapting his Sethian theology in conformity with contemporary conceptions of the Logos as God’s son. His depiction of the Invisible Spirit attended by his assistant Autogenes, “the great angel” and “god of light,” is more closely related to the binitarian model of YHWH and his angelic plenipotentiary, such as the “angel of the presence” or archangels like Michael, Melchizedek, and Metatron, “the lesser YHWH.”32 In Judas, the Invisible Spirit plays the role of the supreme deity, while Autogenes functions as his assistant who is responsible for creating and organizing the heavenly realms “by the will of the Spirit” (48.11–12; cf. 48.15–16). By characterizing the relationship between the Invisible Spirit and Autogenes as one of master and attendant, not father and son, the author distances the Spirit from anthropomorphic processes of birth and generation.

D. The Realms of Autogenes After its brief theogonic section, Judas’s creation myth continues by narrating how Autogenes created a series of realms (aeons) each with a governing luminary (ѻҁѵѷџѳ). However, confusion has been introduced into the passage by a number of problematic reconstructions of lacunae. The Critical Edition presents the following translation: the Self-Generated said, ‘Let A[damas] come into being,’ and [the emanation] occurred. And he [created] the first luminary to reign over him. And he said, ‘Let angels come into being to serve [him,’ and myriads] without number came into being. And he said, ‘[Let] a luminous aeon come into being,’ and he came into being. He created the second luminary [to] reign over him, together with myriads of angels without number, to offer service. And that is how he created the rest of the aeons of the light. And he made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number, to assist them. (48.1–21)

Many commentators have interpreted this passage as a truncated version of a story preserved in the Apocryphon of John, which narrates how Autogenes established each of his four luminaries over an aeon, and then populated the first three aeons with Adamas, Seth, and the race of Seth respec  32

See Daniel 10–12; 11QMelchizedek 2.10–11, where Melchizedek, portrayed as a messianic agent of the God of Israel, is called both el and elohim; Sefer Hekhalot 12:5. For discussion, see John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (2 nd edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 101–104; 183– 187. Some early Christians conceived of Jesus Christ as an angel as well: see Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 14.5; Dunn, Christology in the Making, 132.



D. The Realms of Autogenes

81

tively.33 In the Apocryphon of John, the four aeons of the luminaries play an important role in its soteriology, since they are the locations to which the souls of different kinds of people will go after bodily death. Members of the race of Seth will return to their residence with the third luminary, while the aeon of the fourth luminary will serve as the residence for souls of people who repent late. It is quite likely that the problematic reconstruction “A[damas]” advanced in the Critical Edition is based entirely on a perceived similarity between this passage and the Apocryphon of John’s placement of Adamas with the first luminary. Following the Critical Edition’s reconstruction, and assuming that the passage is an abbreviated version of the Apocryphon of John, Gesine Schenke Robinson regards it as yet another example of how this Gospel’s “resemblance to other Sethian texts is limited to a mere outline of the main figures, with no interest in their deployment and function, not to speak of any interest in Sethian soteriology.”34 John Turner suggests an alternative interpretation, namely, that the entire passage is an unusual interlude into the creation of the sun, moon and stars in Genesis 1:16 (“And God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night – and the stars”). Yet Turner then concludes that “we have an anomaly”: in comparison with other Sethian treatises, the Gospel of Judas interrupts the theogony by introducing a properly cosmogonical account of the origin of the changeable, perceptible world between the generation of the divine Adamas and the account of the generation of Seth, his seed, and the divine realm of the Self-generated One in which they reside. Unfortunately, this puzzling anomaly causes difficulties in interpreting the remainder of this Gospel’s theogony and cosmogony.35

  33

See Ap. John NHC II 7.30–9.16 and parallels. Hence Turner (“The Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 196) comments that in Judas “Autogenes . . . creates four Luminaries and their aeons, the first three of which, though unnamed, contain the heavenly Adamas, Seth, and Seth’s ‘incorruptible generation.’” 34 Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas,” 77. 35 Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 107–109. See similarly, Simon Gathercole, Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2007), 92. I agree with Turner that Judas’s creation language (“Let . . . come into being. . . and it happened . . .”) was ultimately inspired by Gen 1. Coptic translators rendered Ǭǣ̓˩ǥ̀ǯǧǶDZDZ̤Ƕǻȍ of Genesis (LXX 1:7, 9, 11, 15, 20, 24, 30) into Sahidic as ёѹҁёѵȕҁѱљțѣѫёǼ (extant only in vv. 20 and 24 [Sahidische Bibelfragmente III, ed. von Lemm 1907]) and into Boharic as ѯѹѯțёѵȕҁѱѣѩѱёѣѳџȡ (vv. 9, 11, 15, 20, 24, 30 in Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentatech, ed. Peters 1985). See Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138, at 134. However, I do not think that the author of Judas intended this section to be understood as a summary of the Genesis narrative itself.



82

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

I suggest, however, that the apparent difficulty did not originate with the author of Judas, but has been introduced by the problematic reconstructions “A[damas]” and “[emanation]” in the Critical Edition. The editors reconstruct the first three lines of the passage as follows: 1 ѫŶȟƉѣƉѱƉ>ё@ѹѷѯ>ѕљѫџѵȝљ@ѩƉёѳљȗ 2 ȕҁѱƉ>љ@ѫŶȟѣƉёƉ>їёѩёѵ@ёѹҁёѵȕҁ 3 ѱљ>ѫŶȟѣѷљѱѳѯѯї@ѯѵёѹҁ

1 the Self-Generated said, ‘Let 2 A[damas] come into being,’ and [the] 3 [emanation] occurred.

The editors orginally adopted the reconstruction “A[damas]” during the production the preliminary transcript in 2006, and it has been perpetuated in a number of subsquent translations and commentaries. 36 The editors then reconstructed line 3 with the feminine noun ѱѳѯѯїѯѵ (ǩƄ Dzdz͆DZǦDZȍ), ‘emanation,’ based on the feminine pronoun in ёѵȕҁѱљ in line 2. I suggest that if we remove these problematic reconstructions – especially the reference to “A[damas]” – the passage may be understood neither as a truncated account of the Apocryphon of John’s four luminaries and their aeons, nor as a confused hiatus into the creation of the sun, moon and stars in Genesis 1. Instead, the passage is a summary of how Autogenes established a series of twelve realms each with a ruling light, the “twelve realms of the twelve lights” referred to explicitly on the next page (49.18–20). As we shall see, the author of Judas adapted this numerology from an astrological tradition also preserved in the treatise Eugnostos, according to which the upper realms were organized into successive divisions of 12, 72, and 360 powers, heavens and firmaments. Like Judas, the parallel tradition in Eugnostos speaks of twelve aeons with twelve corresponding powers or angels. Can we, then, reconstruct lines 2–3 without ёƉ>їёѩёѵ@ and >ѱѳѯ ѯї@ѯѵ? As Peter Nagel suggests, a Coptic rather than Greek word is more plausible on line 3: ёѹҁёѵȕҁѱљ>ѫŶѡљѫŶѷёȗȝѯ@ѯѵ, “and it happened [as he said].”37 The feminine conjugation ёѵȕҁѱљ does not anticipate a Greek substantive such as ѷљѱѳѯѯїѯѵ (ǩƄ Dzdz͆DZǦDZȍ), but is the impersonal Coptic verb, ‘it happened.’

  36

See notation to the Critical Edition, 215. Cf. Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10 (2006): 5–14, esp. 11. The reconstruction “A[damas]” was subsequently adopted by Gathercole, Rewriting Early Christianity, 90; Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 117; and the Nag Hammadi Scriptures (Fortress Press, 2007), 765. Alternatively, Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 276, 351 reconstruct ѥƉ[љёѣҁѫ], ‘[another aeon],’ and then emend the feminine pronoun to masculine ёȗ!ȕҁѱљ. They do not, however, offer a reconstruction of line 3. 37 Nagel, “zwei Jahre später,” 133–134.



D. The Realms of Autogenes

83

Nagel’s reconstruction has now been adopted by Gregor Wurst in his “Addenda et Corrigenda to the Critical Edition” (2009). 38 However, the solution requires a minor adjustment due to an apparent miscalculation of the lacuna’s length. Nagel and the editors of the Critical Edition estimate only 9–10 character spaces in the lacuna, but a close examination of the manuscript photographs reveals space for some 13 characters. I therefore suggest the modification >ѥёѷёѡљ љѫѷёȗȝѯ@ѯѵ, “and it happened [just as he said].” Similar syntax appears elsewhere in Codex Tchacos, especially at 16.25: ѷёљѣѳљѥёѷёѡљѫѷёѥȝѯѯѵ, “in order that I may act just as you said.”39 The reconstruction ёƉ>їёѩёѵ@ remains in the Critical Edition’s text, however, and is problematic not only exegetically, as we have seen, but also for text-critical reasons. The obscure ink trace which the editors read as the upper left-hand corner of alpha (ёҕ) is so miniscule that it can easily fit many other characters. Indeed, apart from the presumed parallel with the Apocryphon of John, there is no reason to reconstruct “A[damas]” here. As an alternative, Brankaer and Bethge read the ink trace as a kappa, and reconstruct ѥƉ[љёѣҁѫ], “another aeon.” Although their restoration is on the right track, I suggest that the Coptic prefix ѥљ-, “another,” is unnecessary. 40 The ink trace can simply be read as the upper left-hand corner of an omicron, thus constituting the Coptic indefinite article in ѯƉ>ѹёѣҁѫ@, “a [realm (aeon)].” Hence my revised transcript of 48.1–3 and translation of the entire passage: 1 ѫŶңƉѣѱƉ>ё@ѹѷѯ>ѕљѫџѵȝљ@ѩƉёѳљȗ 2 ȕҁѱƉ>љ@ѫŶңѣƉѯƉ>ѹёѣҁѫ@ёѹҁёѵȕҁ 3 ѱљ>ѥёѷёѡљѫѷёȗȝѯ@ѯѵёѹҁ And Self-Generated said, “Let a [realm] come into being,” and it happened [just as he said]. And he [established] the first light to rule over it. And he said, “Let some angels come into being to serve it,” and a countless myriad came into being. And he said, “Let a luminous realm come into being,” and it came into being. He established the second light to rule over it with countless myriads of serving angels. And in this way he created the rest of the realms of light, and caused them to be ruled. And he created some countless myriads of angels for their service. (48.1 –21)

  38

Gregor Wurst, “Addenda et Corrigenda to the Critical Edition,” Codex Judas Papers, 504. 39 Compare CT 12.16, 15.25, 21.10, 27.1. Sahidic Gospel of Mark 14:16 provides another example: ёѹțљљѱѩёѥёѷёѡљљѫѷёȗȝѯѯѵ, “and they found the place just as he said.” 40 Although one other aeon was previously mentioned in the narrative – the one in which the Invisible Spirit resides – a reference to “another aeon” here would be a bit awkward since this aeon is clearly the first in a series and corresponds to “the first light.”



84

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

When one restores the passage with the reading “a [realm]” (ѯƉ>ѹёѣҁѫ@) rather than “A[damas]” (ёƉ>їёѩёѵ@) a clear pattern emerges: Autogenes creates (i) a realm, (ii) the ‘first light’ to rule over it, and (iii) some ministering angels. The pattern is then repeated: Autogenes creates another realm, the ‘second light’ to rule over it, and more ministering angels. Judas then summarizes the creation of the remaining realms, lights and angels by simply stating that “in this way he created the rest of the realms of light . . .” How many realms of light does Autogenes create? The following lines clarify that the unspecified number of realms amount to “the twelve realms of the twelve lights” (49.18–20). If we remove the problematic reconstructions “A[damas]” and “[emanation]” then Judas’s cosmogony becomes wholly intelligible. It is not about the creation of the four luminaries as found in the Apocryphon of John, nor about the sun, moon, and stars from Genesis 1. Rather, it is a brief summary of how Autogenes created twelve realms, each with a ruling luminary. As I discussed above, the author of Judas appears to have composed his theogonic narrative by drawing on common sources with the Apocryphon of John and texts known to Irenaeus that described the Invisible Spirit, his attendant Autogenes, and the four angels who serve Autogenes. However, for his cosmogonic narrative, the author evidently drew from common sources with the treatise Eugnostos that described the organization of the cosmos into successive divisions of 12, 72, and 360. Judas’s “twelve realms of the twelve lights” (49.18–20) clearly relates to the tradition found in Eugnostos that the creator “made twelve [realms] for the service of the twelve .”41   41

Eugnostos NHC V 12.23–25. The version in NHC III reads “twelve aeons for the retinue of the twelve angels” (84.14–17. Judas’s author may have drawn the language of ‘establishing’ (ѷёțѯ) the lights from the same tradition that appears in the Apocryphon of John (cf. ѷёțѯ/ѵљțҁ in CT 48.4, 12 and NHC II 8.9, 13, 17) yet applied it to the cosmology of twelve lights with twelve aeons paralleled in Eugnostos. In Ap. John, Autogenes also possesses twelve aeons, but instead of ‘establishing’ a corresponding luminary over each of them, as in Judas, he allocates the twelve aeons among his four luminaries, three for each. Scholars have in fact suggested that Ap. John adapted its twelve-aeon cosmology from Eugnostos. See John Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001), 203–214; Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of Ophite Evidence (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 41–62. Unlike Ap. John, however, Judas adds that the lights “rule” over their aeons (ѳŶљѳѯ 48.5, 13, 18). Turner notes that Judas’s language of ‘ruling’ is strange in a Sethian text, since the Sethians considered themselves to be the kingless race. However, some Sethian authors do include language of ruling and kingship in their descriptions of the heavens: see Holy Book NHC III 55.13; 65.5; Tri Morph. XIII 39.13–17; 50.8?; Marsanes X 6.17–20. Judas’s description of the luminaries



E. The Incorruptible Race

85

Before examining the material common to Judas and Eugnostos more closely, it is necessary to survey Judas’s brief account of the appearance of heavenly Adamas and Seth, and the foundation of the “incorruptible race of Seth” among the twelve realms. Here too we shall see that Judas and Eugnostos share a tradition about twelve ‘androgynous’ lights.

E. The Incorruptible Race According to the Gospel of Judas, the race of Seth resides among the twelve realms of the twelve lights created by Autogenes. The passage is poorly preserved, and a perplexing reference to the number 24 has been introduced into the text of the Critical Edition through the editors’ reading of obscure ink traces on line 49.8. I first quote from the Critical Edition, then provide my discussion and revised transcript: And Adamas was in the first cloud of light that no angel could (?) (ever) see among all those called ‘divine.’ And he [---] that [---] the image [---] and after the likeness of [this] angel. He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear [---] the twelve [lights] the 24 [---]. (48.21–49.8)

Judas first introduces Adamas at this point in its narrative. Just as it describes Autogenes coming from a cloud, with no story of his creation, Judas simply states that Adamas “was dwelling (ѫљȗȕѯѯѱ) in the first cloud of light.” This cloud presumably refers to the first, luminous cloud from which Autogenes appeared (47.14–21) in contrast to the “other cloud” from which his four angels came forth (47.23–24). The imperfect tense (ѫљȗȕѯѯѱ) – the only occurrence of this tense in the entire mythical narrative – may imply that Adamas preexisted in the first cloud with Autogenes. This association forms a threefold link between Autogenes (the god of light), Adamas, and humanity, of which Adamas is an archetype. Although the next act in the story is heavenly damaged (“And he […] that […] the image […] and after the likeness of [this] angel”), it most likely narrated how Adamas created his heavenly son Seth based on an interpretation of Genesis 5:3 (“When Adam had lived 130 years he begat after his image and likeness and called his name Seth”). The breaks in Judas’s manuscript, however, obscure who creates Seth (Adamas would be expected) and after whose image and likeness he was created. If the reconstruction “after the likeness of [this] angel” is correct,42 it may mean that   ruling over their aeons is probably related to the cosmology of Eugnostos, which associates a ‘kingdom’ with its third member of the god-head, Immortal Man. 42 ёѹҁ ѥƉёƉѷƉё ѱѣѫљ ѫƉѱƉ>љљѣ ёѕ@_ѕљѧѯѵ (49.4–5). The plural ѫƉѫƉ>љљѣ ёѕ@ѕљѧѯѵ, “of [these] angels,” is also possible since the ink trace of the definite article is obscure.



86

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

Seth was produced after the likeness of “the great angel” Autogenes, the god of light. Under this hypothesis, the author of Judas (or whoever first composed this tradition) read the pronouns in Genesis 5:3 (“his image and his likeness”) not as a reference to Adam, the immediate antecedent, but to God in Genesis 5:1–2. If so, then heavenly Seth himself, the progenitor of the holy race, would directly bear the likeness of God, the Autogenes.43 A difficulty in the Critical Edition’s transcript, however, is that the editors read the series of highly obscure ink traces at 49.8 as ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљ, the Coptic number 24: 5 6 7 8

. . . ёȗѯѹѯѫțŶѷƉ>ѕљѫљё@ ѫёѻѡёѳѷѯѵѫŶѵџƩѡљѓ>ѯѧ@ ѩŶѱѩѫѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѻ>ҁѵѷџѳ@ ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљƉ>s@44

He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear to the twelve [lights] of the 24 [---].

Researchers have been puzzled by this ambiguous number.45 No where else does Judas invoke the number 24, nor does 24 reconcile with its numerical organization of the heavens which, as we shall see, follows the equations 12 x 6 = 72, and 72 x 5 = 360 as in Eugnostos.46 The reading ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљ is also difficult for text-critical reasons. It does not take into account a third supralinear stroke visible above the eighth and ninth characters on the line, and it leaves an awkward gap  

43 I suggest ёѹҁ >ёȗȝѱѯ ѫŶѵџѡ țѫŶ ѱѩё љ@ѷѩѩёѹ >ѫŶȟѣ ёїёѩёѵ ѥёѷё@ ѡѣѥҁѫ >ѩѱѫѯѹѷƉљѩŶѱѯѹѯǼѫ@ёѹҁѥƉёƉѷƉёѱѣѫљѫŶѱƉ>љљѣёѕ@ѕљѧѯѵ, “And [Adamas begat Seth in] that [place according to] the image [of the god of light], and according to the likeness of [this] angel.” The god of light and the angel would, then, refer to Autogenes, who is described as such in 47.19–26. Other readings are of course possible: Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 108n34 suggests ёѹҁ>țѳёǼțƩѫѷȟџѱљљ@ѷƩѩѩёѹ>ёȗȝѱѯѫѵџѡѥёѷё@ѡѣѥ ҁѫ>ѩŶѱљȗљѣҁѷёїёѩёѵ@ёѹҁѥёѷёѱѣѫљѫƉѫƉ>љљѣёѕ@ѕљѧѯѵ, “And [in] that [cloud he begat Seth after the] the image [of his father Adamas] and after the likeness of [these angels].” 44 I cite from Gregor Wurst’s revised transcript (“Neue Fragmente I”) which places fragment I-5-Ĺ at the end of lines 6–7. 45 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 276 (cf. 353) offer the reconstruction ѫŶƉȝѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљƉѫƉїƉ>ѹѫёѩѣѵ@, “twenty-four powers,” based on the reference to the First Human and his incorruptible “powers” at 50.20. But this reading, especially the delta, does not reconcile with the visible ink traces. Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 199 suggests that the number 24 may play a role in Judas’s organization of the heavens through multiples of the first three prime numbers: 12 x 2 = 24; 24 x 3 = 72; 72 x 5 = 360. The manuscript is so damaged at this point, however, that such a sequence (especially multiples of 2 and 3) is unclear. Meyer, “Gnostic Connection,” 148 suggests that 24 may signify the hours of the day. 46 The number 24 could of course be the implied total of “the twelve realms of the twelve lights” (49.18–20). This is unlikely, however, because the syntax “the twelve [lights] of 24 [. . . (?)]” suggests that the twelve lights are a group distinct from the 24.



E. The Incorruptible Race

87

between the characters janjia (ȝ) and omicron (ѯ). There is clearly a problem with the transcription in this case. As an alternative, I suggest that we reconstruct the ink traces on 49.8 as ѫŶțƉѯƉѯƉѹƉ ѷŶ>ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљ, the usual Coptic term for ‘androgynous’: 5 ёѹҁёȗѯѹѯѫțŶѷƉ>ѕљѫљё@ 6 ѫёYDFѻѡёѳѷѯѵѫŶѵƩџƩѡљѓ>ѯѧ@ 7 ѩŶѱѩŶѫŶѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѻƉ>ҁѵѷџѳ@ 8 ѫŶțƉѯƉѯƉѹƉ ѷŶ>ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљƉ>ёѹҁѷѯѷљ@ 9 ёȗѯѹѯѫțŶȕȗљѵѫѯ>ѯѹѵ@ 10 ѫŶѻҁƉѵѷџѳ

And he revealed the imperishable race of Seth to the twelve androgynous [lights]. [And then] he revealed seventy-two lights (etc.)

This reading is supported by a number of paleographic observations. The ink traces which the Critical Edition transcribe as the two upper strokes of a janjia (ȝ) are more likely the upper strokes of the characters țѯ (forming a concave shape like ȝ). The upper left-hand corner of ѩ and the curved upper-stroke of љ are also visible. The third supralinear stroke visible on 49.8 then fits perfectly over >ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљ, just as that word is usually marked in Codex Tchacos and other Coptic manuscripts.47 The reading ѫŶѻƉ>ҁѵѷџѳ@ ѫŶțƉѯƉѯƉѹƉ ѷŶ>ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљҕ, ‘the twelve androgynous [lights]’ not only accounts for all the visible ink traces and character spaces in a way that ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљ cannot, but it also finds further support in Eugnostos’s parallel tradition about twelve ‘androgynous’ powers. According to Eugnostos, the Creator revealed “six androgynous spiritual beings” (ѫŶѵѯѯѹѩŶѱѫљѹѩёѷѣѥѯѫѫŶțѯѯѹѷѵțѣѩљ), i.e. six males coupled with six females, whom it goes on to characterize as “the twelve powers” (ѱѩѫŶѷѵŶѫѯѯѹѵѫŶȟѯѩ) with the twelve aeons. 48 It is clear that the traditions in Judas and Eugnostos are related since both of these texts depict the 12 androgynies as the source from which the subsequent divisions of 72 and 360 lights, heavens, and firmaments come forth. Despite the fact that Judas describes the 12 lights as ‘androgynous,’ the concept of androgyny does not appear to play a significant role in its theology. The term is probably nothing more than a vestige of the author’s sources. In order to create a heavenly residence for his holy race, and to sketch a generic account of how the cosmos was organized into successive divisions of 12, 72 and 360, Judas’s author simply incorporated traditions about Adamas, Seth, and the race of Seth with cosmological traditions about 12 androgynous lights/powers/angels and their realms. It is likely that he formed his account by drawing from multiple written sources, which also underlie the Apocryphon of John and Eugnostos.   47 48



See ѵțƩѣѩљ at CT 10.20; 20.26; 21.5; 21.27; 23.3; 24.16; 25.19; 26.4, 52.19. Eugnostos NHC III 82.7–83.10; V 10.13–11.22.

88

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

Therefore according to Judas’s cosmology, Adamas, Seth and the race of Seth inhabit the region of the twelve androgynous lights and their twelve realms. As scholars have noted, this description of the their heavenly residence is much simpler than the Apocryphon of John’s stratified schema organized around the four luminaries, according to which Adamas resides with the first luminary, Seth with the second, the race of Seth with the third, and the souls of those who repent late with the fourth. Judas makes no such allocation. In contrast, it simply places Seth and his incorruptible race altogether with the twelve realms of the twelve androgynous lights. Judas’s un-stratified schema probably reflects the author’s sectarian vision and rhetoric. In contrast to the Apocryphon of John, Judas’s polarizing distinction between the ‘holy race’ and the ‘human races’ called for total consolidation of everyone destined for salvation into a single, undifferentiated group, “the incorruptible race of Seth.” In the author’s view, people either do or do not belong to the holy race. His eschatology provides no stratified picture of salvation like that found in the Apocryphon, which permitted those who repent late to inhabit a realm below the race of Seth. Instead he envisions that the souls of the human races will simply cease to exist after bodily death, while souls of the holy race shall be taken up to the realms on high (43.14–23; 45.12–24), back to their primordial home among the twelve androgynous lights.

F. Cosmic Numerology After Jesus explains how Autogenes established the 12 realms and lights, and how Seth and his incorruptible race were revealed to them, he continues with a story about the creation of further heavenly realms, all arranged in a harmonious numerical order: Autogenes produces another 72 lights, and these in turn produce 360 lights themselves. Just as the 12 lights correspond to 12 realms, the 72 lights correspond to 72 heavens, and the 360 lights correspond to 360 firmaments. As scholars have observed,49 Judas’s description of this heavenly organization relates closely to the numerology found in the treatise Eugnostos. It is therefore likely that Judas and Eugnostos share some kind of literary relationship, probably one or more common sources, as the following synopsis suggests:

  49

Meyer, “Gnostic Connection,” 148–149; Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 432; Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 198; idem, “Sethian Myth,” 110.



89

F. Cosmic Numerology Gospel of Judas 49.5 –50.11

Eugnostos NHC III50

And he revealed the imperishable race of Seth to the twelve androgynous [lights].

83.10 –20 Then the twelve powers 51 whom I just mentioned consented with each other.

“[And then] he revealed the seventy-two lights among the imperishable race by the will of the Spirit.

The six males and six females each revealed six (powers), so that there are seventy-two powers.

And the seventy-two lights themselves revealed three hundred and sixty lights among the imperishable race by the will of the Spirit, so that their number is five for each.

Each one of the seventy-two (powers) revealed five spiritual beings, which are the three hundred and sixty powers. The union of them all is the will. . . .

And their father is the twelve realms of the twelve lights.

84.12 –85.3 And after those whom I mentioned appeared, All-Begetter, their father, soon created twelve realms for the service of the twelve angels.52

And for each realm there are six heavens, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two lights.

And in all the realms, there were six (heavens) in each one, so there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two powers who appeared from him.

And for each of them (i.e. the seventytwo heavens), (there are) five firmaments, so there are three hundred and sixty firmaments.

And in each of the (seventy-two) heavens there were five firmaments, so there are three hundred and sixty [firmaments] for the three hundred sixty powers that appeared from them. . . .

[They] were given authority with a [multitude] of angelic armies without number for glory and [service], even some virginal [spirits as well], for glory and service to all the realms and heavens and their firmaments.

 

88.21 –89.8 They were provided with angelic armies, myriads without number, for service and glory, even some virginal spirits, the ineffable lights . . . Thus were completed the realms, their heavens, and firmaments for the glory of Immortal Man and Sophia his consort.

50 I translate from the Coptic text of Douglas M. Parrott, Nag Hammadi Codices III,3– 4 and V,1 with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081: Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ (Leiden: Brill, 1991). 51 Earlier Eugnostos calls the twelve powers “six androgynous spiritual beings” (ѫŶѵѯѯѹѱѫљѹѩёѷѣѥѯѫѫŶțѯѯѹѷѵțѣѩљ), i.e. six males and six females (III 82.9–10). 52 The parallel in Eugnostos NHC V 12.24–25 reads “twelve [aeons] for retinue of the twelve,” where the context implies “twelve (powers).”



90

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

Judas’s organization follows an alternating pattern of multiplication: 6 lights x 12 realms = 72 lights; 5 lights x 72 lights = 360 lights; 6 heavens x 12 realms = 72 heavens; 5 firmaments x 72 heavens = 360 firmaments. The formula thus configures the realms of Autogenes in a three-tiered hierarchy: 12 lights with 12 realms on top; 72 lights with 72 heavens in the middle; 360 lights with 360 firmaments at the bottom. This numerology undoubtedly originated in calendrical astrology. The numbers 12 and 360 have unambiguous referents in the months and days of the year, as Eugnostos makes explicit: “the 12 months came to be as a type of the 12 powers; the 360 days of the year came to be as a type of the 360 powers . . . their hours and moments came to be as a type of the innumerable angels.”53 The number 72 is more ambiguous, however, and no explanation of it is provided in Eugnostos. Some commentators have suggested that the number 72 may be explained on the basis of the Jewish tradition about the 72 angels who rule over the nations of the world.54 Yet such an interpretation remains difficult, especially because the 72 angels are not prima facie related to the calendar, nor do Judas and Eugnostos appear to know such a tradition. The entire numerology, including 72, can be explained on the basis of an archaic lunar calendar that reckons a 360-day year divided into 72 weeks of 5 days each. Indeed, such a calendar was discovered at Oxyrhynchus, copied onto a papyrus roll dating to the second century C.E. This papyrus demonstrates that such a system was still known around the time when Judas was composed.55 But why, unlike Eugnostos, does Judas make   53

Eugnostos NHC III 84.1–11. Meyer, “Gnostic Connection,” 106n36: “On the seventy-two aeons and luminaries, compare the traditional number of nations in the world, according to Jewish lore”; 148: “[t]here are seventy-two heavens and luminaries, like the traditional number of nations in the world according to Jewish lore.” Cf. Benno Przybylski, “The Role of Calendrical Data in Gnostic Literature,” Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980), 56–70, esp. 62. Cf. William R. Schoedel, “Scripture and the Seventy-Two Heavens in the First Apocalypse of James,” Novem Testamentum 12 (1970), 118–129, esp. 123. 55 P. Oxy. III 465, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903), 126–137. The calendar was clearly used for practical (i.e. magical) purposes, such as healing and fortune telling, etc., since it describes the deity who presides over each time period along with his or her associated omens, signs, and astrological influences. It is quite fascinating not only because it shares a heavenly numerology with Judas, but also because it describes a god who bears a striking resemblance to one of Judas’s fallen angels, Nebro the ‘apostate’ (ёѱѯѵѷёѷџѵ 51.14). According to the calendar, a god named Nebu, whose name it translates as “the lord of wars” (̖Ǭ͈dzǫDZ>ȍ@ǶιǯDzDZǭ̀>Ǯ@ǻǯ), presides over a time characterized by terrible fighting, disease, and death, an era in which an anonymous “apostate” (˙DzDZǵǶ̾Ƕǩȍ) shall arise and wreak havoc on the land. Yet some people, it predicts, shall pass through this tumultuous time unaware of the suffering around them by congregating in temples 54



F. Cosmic Numerology

91

no explicit connection between its heavenly numerology and the calendar? It may be that the author chose to suppress any astrological significance because in his heavenly ‘geography’ these realms correspond to “the place where neither the sun nor moon nor day will rule” as Jesus explained earlier in the dialogue (45.20–22). By including the numerology in his myth, the author probably intended little more than to sketch a brief cosmogonic account of Autogenes’s creative activity. Its function probably has more to do with typical elements found in the genre of cosmogonic mythology – a sequence of theogony, cosmogony, anthropogony – than any real significance of the content. After setting forth the organization of the lights, heavens, and firmaments, Judas adds a further comment which scholars have perceived as quite puzzling: Now that multitude of immortals (ѫёѷѩѯѹ [˙Ǫ̾ǯǣǶDZǫ]) is called ‘cosmos,’ that is, ‘perishable’ (ѻѡѯѳё), by the Father and the seventy-two lights which are with Autogenes and his seventy-two realms. (50.11 –18)

Scholars have sensed a seeming incompatibility in the idea that the cosmos is both immortal and perishable. According to Simon Gathercole, “It is a little surprising that midway through the account of powerful and pure (‘virgin’) spirits we are suddenly told that they constitute the corrupted world.” Although Gathercole comments that “the reason for this sudden non-sequitor is probably lost to us,” he nevertheless interprets the passage as symptomatic of “what for many scholars is one of the key components of Gnosticism – a very negative valuation of the material creation.” 56 Brankaer and Bethge similarly remark that “Zu Beginn wird – in typisch ‘gnostischer’ Weise – die Welt negativ qualifiziert.” 57 As an alternative, John Turner ingeniously proposes the simple emendation of ѻѡѯѳё to

  and offering cult worship through song, dance, chants and feasts. The similarities between Judas and the Oxyrhynchus calendar – their numerology, Nebro/Nebu figures, and the ideas of apostasy and ignorant cult worship – may suggest some common traditions about Nebro/Nebu which circulated in the second century. Wilhlem Bousett, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (*|ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907), 358 suggests that a calendar of this sort underlies the numerology of the treatise Pistis Sophia from the Askew Codex. Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 199, similarly points to Egyptian calendars discussed by Plutarch (On Isis and Osiris 12, 355d3– 356a8) regarding a mythical etiology for the 5 intercalary days. However, the number 5 in Judas’s cosmology is not an intercalary addition, but a factor of 360 (5 x 72). Pliny the Elder, Natural History 2.110 reports that some astrologers divide the heavens into 72 signs (duo atque septuaginta signa). 56 Simon Gathercole, Rewriting Early Christianity, 94. 57 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 354.



92

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

ѻѯѳё (˶ǸDZdz̾), so that the immortal cosmos is not called “perishable” but “the heavenly circuit.”58 We may, however, interpret the passage without emending the text or appealing to the cliché that Gnostics hated the world. By the time Judas was composed, the notion that the cosmos is simultaneously immortal and perishable was already well established among Greek philosophers. The Stoics maintained that while the material cosmos per se is in one sense eternal, it is in another sense perishable because it undergoes natural decay and periodic dissolution. According to Philo of Alexandria, his Stoic interlocutors spoke of an immortal and perishable cosmos with precisely the same vocabulary as Judas. Philo begins his treatise On the Eternity of the World by observing that “the words ǬǾǵǮDZǴ and ǸǪDZdz̽ are both used in many senses . . .” and then goes on to describe the Stoic position: In their view, one can speak of the cosmos one way as eternal (˙̈́ǦǫDZȍ) and in another as perishable (ǸǪDZdz̾); on the one hand perishable with respect to its present arrangement, but on the other, eternal, because of the conflagration, since it is rendered immortal (ǣƃǪǣǯǣǶǫǨ͆ǮǧǯDZȍ) by never ending regenerations and cycles. 59

Judas’s reference to a cosmos consisting of ‘immortals’ which are nevertheless in some sense ‘perishable’ can therefore be understood as a basic Stoic conception known to Jewish thinkers like Philo already by the first century C.E. It is important to observe, however, that in Judas “the multitude of immortals” called cosmos and perishable refers not to the entire heavenly organization (12, 72, 360) but only to the 360 lights and firmaments. 60 Judas explicitly says that the multitude is regarded as a cosmos and perishable “by the Father and the seventy-two lights which are with Autogenes and his seventy-two realms.” That is, the seventy-two lights and realms themselves (and presumably everything above them) are not part of the perishable cosmos. Thus perishability appears to characterize only the lowest stratum of the organization, namely the 360 lights and firmaments (along with all their angelic inhabitants). These firmaments participate in both immortality and perishability since, as firmaments (Ƕ̽ǵǶǧdzǧ͊ǮǣǶǣ), their  

Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 112. Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 39b on Ƕ̽ȍDZƃǬǶ͉ǸDZdz̽ȍ of the heavenly spheres. 59 Philo, On the Eternity of the World, 3 and 9 (LCL 363, pp. 186, 190): ǦǿǯǣǶǣǫǦ̿ ǬǣǶ̽ ǶDZǿǶDZǷǴ ̖ Ǯǟǯ ǶǫǴ ǬǾǵǮDZǴ ˙ǡǦǫDZǴ ̖ Ǧǟ ǶǫǴ ǸǪǣdzǶͅǴ ǭǟǥǧǵǪǣǫ ǸǪǣdzǶͅǴ Ǯ̿ǯ ̖ ǬǣǶ̽Ƕ́ǯǦǫǣǬǾǵǮǩǵǫǯ˙ǡǦǫDZǴǦ̖̿ǬǣǶ̽Ƕ́ǯ˩ǬDzǿdzǻǵǫǯDzǣǭǫǥǥǧǯǧǵǡǣǫǴǬǣ̓DzǧdzǫǾǦDZǫǴ ˙ǪǣǯǣǶǫǨǾǮǧǯDZǴDZ̡ǦǟDzDZǶǧǭǩǥDZǿǵǣǫǴ. For similar views of the Stoics, see Origen, Contra Culsum, 4.45, 4.57, 4.61; A. A. Long and David Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge University Press, 1987), 46K = Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 15.18.2. 60 See similarly, Brankaer and Bethge, 354–355: “Man könnte daher erwägen, ob sich die Bezeichnung Kosmos nur auf die 360, die zuletzt enstanden sind, bezieht.” 58



F. Cosmic Numerology

93

cosmological purpose is to divide the regions above from those below. They serve as a border between the upper realms inhabited by the incorruptible (ёѷѻѡѯѳё) race of Seth, and the lower realm of “chaos and the underworld” which, as we will see, is governed by apostate angels. The idea that the 360 lights and firmaments are the first level of the perishable universe may have already appeared in the sources available to Judas’s author, which pertained in some way to speculation about the lunar calendar. It has previously gone unnoticed in discussions of Judas that Eugnostos’s parallel tradition also associates the 360 firmaments with some kind of ‘defect.’ According to Eugnostos, when the firmaments were complete, they were called “the 360 heavens,” according to the name of the heavens that were before them. And all these are perfect and good. And in this way the defect (ȕѷё) of femaleness appeared.61

Whereas Judas describes its 360 firmaments as immortal yet perishable (ѻѡѯѳё), Eugnostos describes its 360 heavens as perfect, yet also associates them with the “defect of femaleness.” Commentators on Eugnostos have suggested that the reason for such a devaluation of the 360 firmaments lies in ancient conceptions about the lunar calendar. Since astronomers observed that the moon shines for only 29 and a half days a month, they regarded the 360-day lunar year as partially defective in comparison to the solar year; in the astronomers’ view, it was like a woman’s strength compared to that of a man. Hence the lunar month could be characterized by “the defect of femaleness.”62 Although Judas does not speak of a ‘defect’ per se, its similar description of the 360 lights and firmaments as ‘perishable’ probably originated in the same lunar-calendar traditions underlying Eugnostos. The author may have included this detail in order to indicate that the stratum of 360 lights and firmaments, the lowest level in the heavenly organization, serves as a barrier between the eternal realms of Autogenes above, and the perishable realms ruled by apostate angels below.

  61

Eugnostos NHC III 84.14–85.9. See Anne Pasquier, Eugnoste: lettre sur le dieu transcendant (NH III, 3 et V, 1), Commentaire (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2010), 122: “Le thème de la déficience des firmaments est en effet en relation avec le calendrier lunaire car, selon les explications données par les Homélies Pseudo-Clémentines (2, XXIII), le mois lunaire est un mois déficient: la révolution de la lune ne durant que 29 jours et demi, elle laisse le mois incomplet, comme la femme est la moitié de l’homme.” See similarly, Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature. SBL Monograph Series 32 (Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1997), 26–29. 62



94

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

G. Eleleth and the Apostate Angels After describing the organization of the upper realms, Jesus continues with a brief summary of the origins of Adamas, Seth, and the race of Seth in the heavens, and then points forward to what comes next in the story: “this is the place in which the first human appeared with his imperishable powers. It is the realm that appeared with its race, the one in which the cloud of knowledge dwells with the angel called El[eleth]” (49.18–51.1). At this point, Jesus introduces two important characters, namely ‘the cloud of knowledge’ and the angel El[eleth], whose name is partially lost in a lacuna at the top of page 51. As we shall see, both Eleleth and the cloud play instrumental roles in commissioning angels to rule over the lower region of ‘chaos and the underworld,’ the place in which humanity lives in subjection to demonic forces. The lacuna that partially obscures Eleleth’s name has, however, led to a misunderstanding among modern readers over the identity of the figure in question. The editors of the original English translation presented the name simply as “El [. . .]” leading some commentators to see a reference to the God of the Hebrew Bible. 63 However, as Jacque van der Vliet and John Turner have aptly observed, the name should be restored to Elvac[eleth] (џƩѧvac>џƩѧƩџƩѡŶ@), an angel who plays a providential role in other Sethian creation stories.64 Nevertheless, the editors of the Critical Edition maintain that the name of the angel is indeed El, the God of the Hebrew Bible. According to their apparatus, “the supralinear stroke seems to end over the ѧ, and traces do not fit with џ, so that a restoration љѧџƉ>ѧџѡ (sic: read џѧџƉ>ѧџѡ) is not probable.” 65 Their reading does not, however, account for the series of vacua (spaces left blank on the manuscript) which are clearly visible after the first two characters on lines 1–7 of page 51, and lines 1–8 on page 52 (the verso). When one takes these vacua into account, the reconstruction џƩѧvac>џƩѧƩџƩѡŶ@ is entirely plausible.   63

Ehrman, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” 100: “The gods of this world include El (the word for ‘God’ in the Old Testament); his helper Nebro, also called Yaldabaoth, who is defiled with blood and whose name means ‘rebel’; and another named Saklas, a word that means ‘fool.’ Thus the deities in charge of this world are the Old Testament God, a bloody rebel, and a fool.” Cf. Meyer, “When the Sethians Were Young,” 61; Pagels and King, Reading Judas, 188, 150–151; Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 766. 64 Jacque van der Vliet, “Judas and the Stars: Philological Notes on the Newly Published Gospel of Judas,” in The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 36 (2006), 137–152, esp. 147; cf. Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 199; idem “Sethian Myth,” 112. 65 Critical Edition, 221.



G. Eleleth and the Apostate Angels

95

Judas’s story is not about El, the God of the Hebrew Bible, but the angel Eleleth familiar from Sethian mythology, especially the creation stories told by the Trimorphic Protennoia and Holy Book. This point becomes especially clear when one takes into account the marked literary relationship that Judas shares with the Holy Book in their stories about the origins of the angels who rule over the lower realms: Gospel of Judas 51.4–52.19

Holy Book NHC III 56.22–59.9

After this

After five thousand years, the great light

[Eleleth] said, “Let there be twelve angels [to rule] over chaos and the underworld.”

Eleleth said, “Let someone rule over chaos and the underworld.”

And behold, from out of the cloud appeared an angel.

And a cloud appeared, [whose name is] material Sophia. [This is the one who] looked out over the [regions of chaos].

Fire spews forth from his face, and his likeness is [defiled] with blood.

Her face was like [. . .], her likeness was [. . .] blood. And [the great] angel Gamaliel spoke [to the great Gabrie]l, the minister of [the great light] Oroiael, [saying, “Let] an angel come forth [to rule] over chaos [and the underworld].” Then the cloud, since she was in [agreement, came forth] in two unities (monads), [each] one [possessing] light of [. . .] which she established in the cloud [above].

He is [named] Nebro, which means ‘apostate,’ but others say Yaldabaoth. And another angel came out of the cloud too, namely Saklas.

[Then] Sakla the great [angel saw] the great daimon who was [with him, Nebr]ouel.

And together, they became [an] earthproducing spirit. Then Nebro created six angels, † and Saklas (did likewise), † for attendance.

[They produced some] attending angels.66

These produced twelve angels in the heavens, and each of them received a share in the heavens.

Sakla [said] to the great [daimon Neb]rouel, “Let twelve aeons come into being in [. . .] aeon, some worlds [. . .].

  66

The poorly preserved copy of the Holy Book in NHC IV (69.4–5) refers specifically to ‘twelve angels’ here, similar to the tradition in Judas.



96

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation Gospel of Judas

Holy Book The great [angel Sakla] spoke according to the will of Autogenes, “There should be [. . .] of the number seven.” [. . .]

And the twelve rulers said to the twelve angels, “Let each one of you [. . .]” And they [. . .] race [. . .]

And he spoke to [the great angels], “Go, [each one] of you, to rule over his [cosmos].” And each one of [the] twelve [angels] went.

[. . . are] the [five] angels: The first [is Ya]ôth, who is called † the Ram. † The [second] is Harmathôth, who is [the eye of fire]. The [third] is Galila. The fourth [is] Yôbel. The fifth is Adônaios.

[The first] angel is A[thoth], whom the [multitude of] human races call [. . .]. The second is Harmas, [who is the eye of the fire]. The third is [Galila. The] fourth is Yôbel. [The fifth is A]dônaios, called [Sa]baoth. The sixth [is Cain, whom the multitude of] human [races] call the sun. The [seventh is Abel]. The eighth is Akiressina. The [ninth Youbel]. The tenth is Harm[oupiael. The] eleventh is Arch[eir Adonein]. The twelfth [is Belias].67

These are the five who ruled over the underworld and the chiefs over chaos.

These are the ones over the underworld [and chaos].

Then Saklas said to his angels,

“Let us create a human being after the likeness and image.” So they fashioned Adam and his wife Eve.

And after the preparation [of the cosmos], Sakla said to his [angels], “I, I am a [jealous] god. And apart from me, nothing [came into being].” (He said this) [because he trusted] in his nature. Then a voice came from on high, saying, “The Man exists, and the Son of Man.” Concerning the descent of the image above, which resembles its voice in the heights as the image which looked out: through the look of the image on high, the first figure was fashioned.

  67

Variations of this list are also preserved in the different versions of the Apocryphon of John. See note to 52.5–6 in Appendix B.



G. Eleleth and the Apostate Angels

97

There is a clear literary relationship between these two creation stories, though its exact nature is uncertain. The fact that Judas names only the first five angels over chaos, yet evidently knows the tradition that Eleleth called forth twelve, indicates that its author drew from a longer and more elaborate source when composing this section of the story. Although it could have been a version of the Holy Book already circulating in the second century, a common source would be a more cautious explanation since we do not know when the Holy Book was first composed. Whatever the relationship, these creation stories are significant within the Sethian tradition because they offer a much more positive account of the world’s creation than the Apocryphon of John, which scholars promote as the locus classicus of Sethian myth. According to the Apocryphon’s narrative, the world came about through the disobedience of Sophia, who gave birth to the malicious creator named Yaldabaoth without the permission of God (the Spirit). Then in his own ignorance, Yaldabaoth proceeded to fashion the world, appoint angelic rulers over the heavens, and create the psychic and material bodies of Adam. This story leaves the reader with the impression that the true God never intended for the world in which humanity lives to be created, but that it came about only by mistake through Sophia’s transgression. Reliance on the Apocryphon of John’s creation story as ‘the classic gnostic myth’ has led to the misleading evaluation that Sethian thought emphasizes an especially strong hatred of the world. Unfortunately, this tendency has also clouded the analysis of the Gospel of Judas, despite the fact that its story is closely related to the much more positive account of creation narrated in the Holy Book. According to Marvin Meyer, “This is the story of the ‘corruptible Sophia’ in the Gospel of Judas. All that is deficient in the world of the divine and the world below stems from the lapse of Wisdom.”68 Yet quite to the contrary, the stories told by Judas and the Holy Book present the impetus for creation as an act of divine providence intended to bring primordial chaos under the control of benevolent heavenly powers. These Sethian cosmogonies thus share the outlook of Genesis 1 and Plato’s Timaeus, in which the Creator desires to bring order out of disorder. Neither Judas nor the Holy Book tell a story about the fall of Sophia. Instead, the angel Eleleth, the minister of Autogenes, calls forth angelic governors to rule over chaos. The Holy Book’s longer version even emphasizes that when the creator-angel Saklas organized the cosmos, he “spoke according to the will of Autogenes.” Only then, “after the preparation of the cosmos,” does Saklas become haughty and rebel by declaring “I, I am a [jealous] god.” Far from the Apocryphon of John’s story of how creation re  68



Meyer, “Gnostic Connection,” 152.

98

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

sulted from Sophia’s disobedience, the Holy Book’s myth relates how the creator angels ordered the cosmos out of chaos according to divine will. Defects with the created world do not arise until Saklas rebels and establishes his own reign below. There are, however, important differences between the Holy Book and Judas’s versions of the story. The Holy Book explicitly names the cloud Sophia and portrays her as a positive agent of creation who mediates between the angelic ministers above and the realm of chaos below. In contrast, Judas omits Sophia entirely and refers only to the cloud from which Nebro and Saklas emerge. The Holy Book’s descriptions of Sophia’s face and blood (unfortunately in a passage so damaged that their meaning is lost) are in Judas associated with Nebro himself. The absence of Sophia in Judas’s cosmogony is consistent with the absence of Barbelo in its theogony. Both feminine characters appear to have been substituted with the more generic image of a cloud. It is interesting, however, that in contrast to the evident omission of Barbelo and Sophia, Judas’s author includes Eve in the narrative of humanity’s creation, where one might have expected only Adam. The omission of Barbelo and Sophia from the theogony and cosmogony, then, may have been an attempt to suppress the role of female characters in the creation of the cosmos in particular. Eve, on the other hand, was included in the creation of humanity with Adam as an attempt explain Genesis 1:27, “male and female he created them,” and for the purposes of explaining human procreation. Furthermore, the order of Nebro and Saklas’s appearance is reversed in the two stories. Whereas the Holy Book first introduces Saklas as the premier angel, with Nebrouel as his accompanying daimon, Judas first introduces Nebro as the chief angel, with Saklas second. Yet in both accounts, Nebrouel/Nebro recedes from the narrative, and Saklas takes on the role of chief angel. In Judas’s version, the relationship between Nebro and Saklas may have been intended to mirror the relationship between the Invisible Spirit and Autogenes: the Spirit is the premier heavenly being for whose attendance Autogenes comes forth; yet the Spirit then largely recedes from the narrative while Autogenes goes about the work of creation. The same pattern occurs with Nebro and Saklas. Judas and the Holy Book also differ on how many angelic attendants serve under Nebro and Saklas. Whereas the Holy Book implies that the chief angels produced only twelve angelic servants to rule over the heavens, Judas speaks of two sets of twelve: twelve rulers and twelve angels. This unique feature may also be a deliberate mirror of Autogenes’s creation of twelve realms, each with twelve ruling lights (48.1–18; 49.19–20). Thus Nebro and Saklas, and their angelic servants, in some way mirror the



G. Eleleth and the Apostate Angels

99

realms above them – a typical theme in Sethian thought, ultimately adapted from Platonic cosmology. Furthermore, Judas and the Holy Book portray the creator angels quite differently. The Holy Book represents Saklas and Nebrouel rather positively at first, coming forth together as “an earth-producing spirit” (perhaps an interpretation of the spirit of God that hovered over the chaotic waters in Genesis 1:2), and then creating their heavens according to the will of Autogenes. In contrast, Judas relates none of the Holy Book’s positive details about Nebro and Saklas, but demonizes Nebro as an angel defiled with blood. Judas then includes a further detail not found in the Holy Book, that Nebro’s name means ‘apostate.’ The author probably found this detail in his source(s), since the name Nebro evidently derives from the Hebrew word ‘to rebel’ (ʣʸʮ) via the biblical figure of Nimrod (spelled ǐǧǤdzǻǦin the Septuagint), and thus reflect an older exegetical tradition which may have originated in a Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking environment.69 If the author of the Holy Book knew the same tradition, then he evidently omitted it in order to create his more nuanced picture of the angels who start as benevolent creative powers but rebel after they establish the cosmos. Judas, on the other hand, preserves the tradition in order to stress the rebellious character of the chief angels right from the moment when they first appeared. The differences between Judas and the Holy Book may be understood in terms of the two authors’ individual purposes. The Holy Book’s careful chronology of events portrays the creation of the cosmos as an event willed by Autogenes, contrary to the more pessimistic story told in the Apocryphon of John. Furthermore, as John Turner observes, the Holy Book’s author sought to exonerate Sophia from the guilt attributed to her by stories like the Apocryphon and Hypostasis of the Archons, where the wicked creator god originates through her transgression. One finds a similar exoneration in the Trimorphic Protennoia, which repeatedly refers to her as “guileless Sophia.”70 In contrast to the Holy Book, the author of Judas does not appear to be concerned with rehabilitating Sophia’s character. If he had any concern about what role she played in creation, it was only to make sure she played no role at all. His aim was to bolster his polemic against the twelve disciples and their cult by providing a story about the origins of their false god (Saklas) as the co-worker, or perhaps even servant, of an apostate angel (Nebro). He had no reason to include the more positive details about Saklas and Nebrouel found in the Holy Book, if he knew them at all, but only to emphasize their rebellious and defiled character.   69 70



See note to 51.12–14 in Appendix B for further details. Cf. Turner, “Sethian Myth,” 114.

100

Chapter 3: The Story of Creation

H. The Problem of Mortality Judas’s myth concludes with the climactic account of how Saklas and his angels fashioned the earthly bodies of Adam and Eve, and then imposed a limit on the length of human life: Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and image.’ So they fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, though in the cloud she is called Zoe. For with this name all the races seek him, and each of them refers to her by their (own) names. Now Sakla did not command [. . .] produce except [. . .] in the races [. . .] which [. . . Ad]am. And the angel said to him, ‘The life of you and your children shall be for a limited time.’ (52.14–53.7)

The myth reflects a common Sethian interpretation of Genesis 1:26 and 2:7, according to which the angels fashion (Dzǭ̾ǵǵǧǫǯ) Adam’s physical body after the divine “likeness and image” of the heavenly human being who appeared to them in the sky. 71 Thus true to the Genesis account, humanity is made after the divine likeness and image, but is understood as the handiwork of an apostate angel and his subordinates. This exegesis of Genesis was probably one way of explaining how humanity could be made in the image of God but also suffer the weaknesses inherent in being human, including passions and death. In Judas, the climactic moment of the entire story of creation is Jesus’ final remark that the creator god (the angel Saklas) imposed a limit on the lifespan of Adam and his descendents. The notion that God limited the lifespan of humanity appears in a number of ancient Jewish and Christian texts. In Genesis, God orders that “their days shall be one hundred and twenty years” (6:3). Psalms sets the limit on human life at seventy to eighty years (90:10 [89:10 LXX]); and Jubilees at one-hundred and ten years (5:8). Judas’s language of a limited, literally ‘numbered time’ (љѹџѱљѫŶѯѹѯљѣȕ) closely resembles ben Sira’s summary of humanity’s creation, according to which God “gave them their days and time numbered (˶Ǯ̀dzǣǴ˙dzǫǪǮDZάǬǣ̓Ǭǣǫdzͅǯ˭ǦǻǬǧǯ) but granted them authority over everything” (17:2). The author of Judas appears to have such Biblical traditions in mind, but he interprets the creator god’s imposition as a virtual curse on Adam and his descendents that marks their subordination to the power of death. The Sethian Apocalypse of Adam expresses a similar concern: Adam recalls that when the creator god removed him and Eve from paradise, “the days of our life became few. Indeed, I knew I had come under the authority of death” (NHC V 67.10–14).   71

Compare Ap. John II 14.13–24; Holy Book III 59.1–9; Hyp. Arch. 87.11–27. For discussion of the names of Eve in this passage, see notes to 52.18–25 in the commentary.



H. The Problem of Mortality

101

The problem of human mortality appears earlier in the dialogue as well, where Judas and Jesus discuss the post-mortem fate of the races (43.12– 44.7). There, Jesus explains that the bodies of the holy race will die, but their souls will live on and be taken up. More problematic, however, is the fact that when members of the human races die, their souls are not taken up but die along with the body. Thus Judas’s creation myth closes on a topic which the author seems to have regarded as the fundamental problem of the human predicament: that the human races are caught in a mortal existence, their days are numbered by a hostile world ruler, and their souls will simply cease to exist when their bodies die. Jesus’ assertion that the souls of the human races will not ascend after bodily death could be interpreted as a rather fixed destiny, the course of which cannot be altered. However, as I argued in Chapter 1, Judas does not advocate an entirely deterministic fate, but allows members of the human race to join the holy race and overcome death. Judas’s author, like many of his Christian contemporaries, believes that baptism effects this transformation. Indeed, the author seems to have deliberately placed the story about the creator limiting human life at the climax of the myth in order to lead to the topic of baptism. As soon as Jesus concludes his monologue, Judas responds with a series of pressing questions: how long shall people live (53.8–9)? Does the human spirit die (53.16–17)? What shall the human races do (54.13–15)? And what about those who have been baptized in the name of Jesus (55.23–25)? Jesus explains that baptism in his name “wipes away all the race of earthly Adam.” According to my analysis in Chapter 1, the “race of earthly Adam” corresponds to the mortal bodies fashioned by the creator god and his angels, which are passed on to Adam’s descendents through procreation. Not unlike Paul’s interpretation of baptism as a death with Christ, divestiture of the sinful body inherited from Adam, and liberation from the powers of Sin and Death (Romans 5–6), Judas understands baptism as a reenactment of the passion of Jesus’ mortal body and simultaneous triumph over demonic powers. Just as the sacrificial death of Jesus’ mortal body “wipes away” the wickedness of the angels and the world ruler himself, so does baptism in the name of Jesus “wipe away” the mortal body of the initiate (55.23–57.10). Through baptism one ceases to be a member of “the race of earthly Adam” and becomes a member of “the great race of Adam” whose ‘fruit’ shall be exalted (56.5–6; 57.10–12). Therefore Judas criticizes the human races who live in subjection to and even worship the malicious angels who cursed them with mortality, but simultaneously offers them baptism in the name of Jesus as a solution to their predicament.



Chapter 4

Judas in Egypt: Codex Tchacos as a Collection A. Introduction In recent years there has been an increased appreciation among scholars for studying ancient manuscripts as material artifacts that reveal something about the interests of people who read and copied them generations after the inscribed texts were originally composed. 1 This chapter will explore the codicology and reception history of the Gospel of Judas in the only ancient context in which we know for certain that it was read, fourth-century Egypt, where it comprised one part of a larger collection of sacred texts bound together in a single volume now called Codex Tchacos.2 Previous studies of Codex Tchacos as a collection focus primarily on how its various tractates share themes and genres which may explain why they were chosen for inclusion in the Codex. These include revelation dialogues between Jesus and his disciples before and after his crucifixion; the problem of persecution and suffering; the origins and fate of humanity; and an interest in the so-called “classic gnostic myth.”3 Yet while these studies offer insights into the contents of the Codex as a collection, and what similarities ancient Egyptian readers may have found among them, none of them goes very far in addressing how this Codex fits into the wider history of fourth-century Egypt and its distinct Christian culture. In this final chapter I go beyond the question of what these tractates have in common with each other, and address what appeal they may have had to fourth-century Egyptian readers. Though this is a speculative enterprise, I maintain that in many respects it is actually less speculative than   1

See, for example, Larry Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 2 The Codex received its name from its current owner, Frieda Nussberger Tchacos. 3 Studies on CT include Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “Codex als Sammlung” in Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen, 419–442; Karen King, “Martyrdom and its Discontents in Codex Tchacos” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 25–42; Alastair Logan, “The Tchacos Codex: Another Document of the Gnostics?” in Codex Judas Papers, 3–21.

B. Date and Provenance of the Codex

103

studies that begin with an ancient – and in many cases even medieval – manuscript, and then retroject to the often hypothetical compositional circumstances of the “original author(s).” When we read Codex Tchacos as a primary source for Egyptian history in the fourth century, at least we know with certainty that someone was copying and reading it in that context. What then remains is to ask what Egyptian readers may have found interesting, useful, and edifying about the Gospel of Judas and the other texts bound with it in the Codex. The answers to this question will necessarily involve more than a discussion of what the tractates have in common with each other; it must also involve some attempt to situate their content within a wider discussion of what we know about the religious lives and concerns of late-antique Egyptians. I shall first discuss the questions of Codex Tchacos’s dating and provenance, and then briefly survey the tractates bound in it. Then I will examine it as a material artifact – its codicology and the practices of its scribe – to see what we can learn about those who produced and read it. Finally, I will turn to the religious content of its tractates, and how it may have appealed to ancient Egyptian readers.

B. Date and Provenance of the Codex Although paleographic and carbon-dating analyses show that Codex Tchacos is a product of fourth, or possibly late third-century Egypt, we do not know precisely where in Egypt it was produced, when, or by whom.4 Dialectal analysis of its tractates suggests a location in middle to upper Egypt. According to Rodolphe Kasser, From the linguistic characteristics of the Codex, one can confirm that its place of origin was very probably Middle Egypt. The Codex is written in Sahidic, the southern supralocal Coptic idiom, and shows regional orthographic variations typical of a local form of Sahidic found in Middle Egypt.5

The National Geographic reporter Herbert Krosney attempted to pin-point the location of the Codex’s discovery by retracing its steps on the antiquities market before it was delivered into the hands of conservators in 2001. He reports that it was discovered sometime before 1978 by Egyptian farmers in a burial cave near the village of Qarara, across the Nile from the city of Maghagha, in the Al-Minya province about 180 kilometers south of  

4 For a report on the carbon-dating analysis, See Herbert Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2006), 302. 5 Critical Edition, 3. Kasser provides a thorough dialectical analysis of the Codex in his accompanying essay, “Étude Dialectale,” Critical Edition, 35–78.

104

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

Cairo. According to Krosney, the cave allegedly preserved “the skeleton of a wealthy man in a shroud” along with other human remains, “probably members of the dead man’s family.” In addition, the farmers discovered the man’s “precious books . . . encased in a white limestone box.”6 The farmers showed the cave and its contents to “Am Samiah,” Krosney’s pseudonym for a local antiquities scout from nearby Maghagha who had connections with dealers in Cairo and Alexandria. Am Samiah took the books and sold them to his connections shortly thereafter.7 Where did Krosney get this information? He based his account on an interview with “Joanna Landis,” his pseudonym for an antiquities collector residing in Alexandria, who claims to have heard about the discovery from Am Samiah himself when she visited Maghagha in 1978. Am Samiah mentioned the books to Landis while giving her a tour of catacombs above the village of Qarara. Krosney quotes Landis saying that “[o]n this occasion Am Samiah told me about the books. He told me a little – that they were found in a box, which he had sold not long before . . . I asked him where he found it, and he answered, ‘Fel gabal, in the mountain.”8 According to Landis, Am Samiah did not show her the exact location of the discovery, and died shortly thereafter. Twenty-seven years later, in 2005, Landis (perhaps at Krosney’s instigation) attempted to find out exactly where the codex had been discovered. She managed to contact Am Samiah’s friend, Mahmoud, but he proved to be of little help, and even gave contradictory accounts about the location of the discovery. 9 Despite the considerable efforts that Krosney must have expended on his investigation (and the colorful reading it makes for marketing the Gospel of Judas to a popular audience), this story of its discovery is too apocryphal in my opinion, and should have no bearing on an account of the Codex’s provenance. The information is third-hand at best, transmitted from “Am Samiah” to “Joanna Landis” to Krosney over a period of some twenty-seven years. Even if Landis’s story has some veracity, we still could not be certain that Codex Tchacos was among the books discovered in the Qarara tomb, and even if it was, it could have made its way to Qarara from anywhere in Egypt, at any point in time. At present, then, all we can say is that Codex Tchacos was produced somewhere in Egypt, most likely middle to upper Egypt based on its dialectal features, sometime in the fourth or possibly late-third century. Hope  6

I cull the essential details of the story from Krosney’s more elaborate narrative in Lost Gospel, 9–24, esp. 9–10, 17, 24. 7 Krosney, Lost Gospel, 10, 17, 24. Krosney indicates on page xxv that the names of Am Samiah and others in the story are pseudonyms. 8 Krosney, Lost Gospel, 14–16; 23–24. 9 Krosney, Lost Gospel, 27–28.



C. Contents of the Codex

105

fully the cartonnage papyri from its cover – which exist, but have not yet been studied – will someday reveal a more precise geographic locale and/or date of its production as they have for some of the Nag Hammadi codices produced in the Thebaid.10

C. Contents of the Codex The extant tractates found in Codex Tchacos (CT) are as follows: 1) Letter of Peter to Philip (CT,1 pages 1–9). This tractate roughly corresponds to the text of Nag Hammadi Codex VIII,2, though some minor variations suggest that the two versions represent independent Coptic translations of a lost Greek Vorlage, which may have existed in different versions itself. 2) James (CT,2 pages 10–30). This tractate roughly corresponds to the text of Nag Hammadi Codex V,3 (where it has the longer title Apocalypse of James). As in the case of CT,1, the two versions of James appear to be independent translations of a hypothetical Greek Vorlage. 3) Gospel of Judas (CT,3 pages 33–58). This is the only known manuscript of this Gospel. 4) The fourth tractate (CT,4, page 59 and following), has been entitled “The Book of Allogenes” by modern editors after the name of the text’s protagonist, Allogenes, which means ‘one from another race’ or ‘Foreigner.’ The actual title of the treatise (which I shall comment upon below) is now lost in a lacuna at the top of page 59. Another treatise entitled Allogenes appears in Nag Hammadi Codex XI, but is not the same as CT,4. This is unsurprising since we know that multiple treatises of Allogenes circulated in antiquity. 11 Fragments of only the first eight pages of this treatise survive. The editors of the Critical Edition place  

10 Wurst refers to CT’s leather cover and cartonnage in the Critical Edition, 27, optimistically adding that the “conservation of these papyri in the cartonnage one day will give scholars the opportunity for verifying – or modifying – the radio-carbon dating”; cf. James Robinson, “Questions about the Tchacos Codex,” in Codex Judas Papers, 550. For the cartonnage from the Nag Hammadi Codices, see John W. Barns, G. M. Browne, J. C. Shelton, eds., Nag Hammadi Codices: Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage of the Covers. Nag Hammadi Studies 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1981). 11 Already toward the end of the third century, Porphyry knew of an “Apocalypse of Allogenes” (Life of Plotinus, 16). A century later, Epiphanius reports that numerous books attributed to Allogenes were read among Christian sectarians whom he calls Sethians and Archontics respectively (Panarion, 39.5.1; 40.2.2). The treatise entitled Allogenes in Nag Hammadi Codex XI also assumes a multitude of books attributed to Allogenes when it refers to itself as the “seal [for] all [the books of] Allogenes” (69.17– 19).

106

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

the last identifiable fragment of the codex as page 66. How many additional pages CT,4 occupied is unknown, though as we will see in my codicological analysis below, there were quite a few more pages in the codex. 5) In addition to these four tractates, some meager fragments indicate that there was at least one more tractate after CT,4. One of the larger segments of extant text reads ѱѷѳѣѵѩљ[. . . . . . . . . .], undoubtedly ѱѷѳѣѵѩљ>ѕѣѵѷѯѵ@, “Trisme[gistus]”, while others show traces of vocative expressions (e.g., “O, my Father”) typical of Hermetic dialogues. Jean-Pierre Mahé suggests that the fragments correspond to lines from Corpus Hermeticum XIII, the famous treatise on spiritual rebirth.12 If Mahé’s identification is correct, then Codex Tchacos also included a Coptic translation of C.H. XIII, or at least an excerpt of it, which would be our earliest witness to this Hermetic tractate. The fragments are so small, however, that this must remain an intriguing hypothesis, but they do demonstrate that CT once included some Hermetic dialogue. The inclusion of such a text in a Christian codex would not be surprising in fourth-century Egypt, since we know that various Christians at this time regarded the ancient wisdom and prophecies of the legendary sage Hermes Trismegistus as a pagan forerunner of Christian truth.13 Whereas the first three tractates of Codex Tchacos have only subscript titles (Letter of Peter to Philip on page 9; James on page 30; Gospel of Judas on page 58), the fourth tractate once had a superscript title on page 59 which is now virtually lost in a lacuna. Since the final page of CT,4 is lost, we do not know whether it also had a subscript like the other tractates. It is unclear why the scribe copied a superscript for this tractate alone; perhaps it appeared that way on the exemplar. All that remains of CT,4’s title on page 59 are decorative diplai (>>>ʊ) above and below the letters ѱȝƉ[. . . .]. The editors of the Critical Edition reconstruct ѱȝƉ[ҁҁѩљ], “The [Book (?)],” and adopt the title “Book of Allogenes.” The full reconstruction of the title ѱȝ>ҁҁѩљ | ѫŶёѧѧѯѕљѫџѵ@ would be possible if one   12

For a transcript of the relevant fragments, and a synoptic comparison with the corresponding Greek text of C.H. XIII, 1–2, see Gregor Wurst, “Preliminary Codicological Analysis of Codex Tchacos,” in Critical Edition, 28–30. Photographic evidence of these fragments has not yet been published, though Wurst did display them in a public lecture delivered at Rice University, Houston, Texas, in March 2008. 13 Lactantius cites the Hermetic Perfect Discourse sympathetically in his Divine Institutes (7.18.3); and like Codex Tchacos, Nag Hammadi Codex VI opens with a Petrine text (The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles) and concludes with Hermetic dialogues. See Michael Williams and Lance Jenott, “Inside the Covers of Codex VI,” in Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica: mélanges offert à Wolf-Peter Funk, ed. L. Painchaud and P.-H. Poirier (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006), 1025–1052.



C. Contents of the Codex

107

assumes that the title wrapped onto a second line. The fragment of the folio’s upper-right-hand corner (designated “Ohio 4584” in the Critical Edition) shows that there is space for only 4–5 characters between ѱȝƉ>@ and a final diple mark (>) at the end of line 1 (which does not appear in the transcript of the Critical Edition). The characters ѫŶёѧѧѯѕљѫџѵ, ‘of Allogenes,’ would, then, have appeared on a second line separated from the first by the decorative diplai visible below line 1.14 As an alternative title for CT,4, I propose ѱȝƉ>ёљѣљ@, The W[ilderness]. This reconstruction not only fits the length of the lacuna on line 1, but would also be quite fitting for the content of this tractate, which narrates Allogenes’s temptation by Satan in the “wilderness,” echoing Jesus’ temptation in the Synoptic Gospels.15 Indeed, on the third page of the text Allogenes prays for divine aid “in this wilderness place” (țѩŶ ѱљљƉ>ѣѩё@ ѫȝёљѣљ 61.24). Under this hypothesis, the titular superscript ѱȝƉ>ёљѣљ@ would have appeared on line 1 of page 59, marked above and below with decorative diplai, while line 2 would have visually separated the title from the column of text by a second row of diplai or a blank space.16 In summary, there are four treatises preserved in Codex Tchacos: (1) The Letter of Peter to Philip; (2) James; (3) The Gospel of Judas; and (4) The B[ook of Allogenes], or as I suggest The W[ilderness]. In addition, there is evidence of at least a fifth tractate, which appears to be a Hermetic dialogue, and could be a Coptic translation of Corpus Hermeticum XIII.

  14

Compare the formatting of the titular subscript of the Letter of Peter to Philip on page 9 where the title is spread over three lines separated by diplai. 15 As Rodolphe Kasser (Critical Edition, 37) observes, the figure of Allogenes “jouant le rôle de Jésus néotestamentaire lors de sa tentation au désert (cf. Mt 4,1–11 et parallèles).” 16 The other extant tractates in Codex Tchacos are of course entitled after the names of their protagonists (Peter, Philip, James, and Judas) rather than with descriptive topics like ‘The Wilderness.’ But there are examples of ancient codices in which the various tractates have different styles of titles, some named after people, others topical and/or descriptive. For example, Nag Hammadi Codex II contains books attributed to famous disciples – Apocryphon of John, Gospels of Thomas and Philip, the Book of Thomas the Athlete – but also two treatises with topical titles, namely the Hypostasis of the Archons and the Exegesis on the Soul. Similarly, NHC VI begins with the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, but continues with titles such as Thunder: Perfect Mind, the Authoritative Logos, and the Concept of Our Great Power. NHC XI includes both an apocalypse of Allogenes and the Interpretation of Knowledge. It would not be unprecedented, then, if Codex Tchacos included books with different styles of titles.

108

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

D. Codicology and Cost of Production Gregor Wurst’s preliminary codicological analysis of Codex Tchacos reveals the remains of two quires cut from one papyrus roll each. According to Wurst, the first quire consisted of 8 sheets (32 pages), and the second of 9 sheets (36 pages). 17 All the sheets were stacked with horizontal fibers facing up (top) and vertical fibers down (bottom), so that when folded the pages would alternate in the pattern ĹĺĹĺ to the center of the quire, and then ĺĹĺĹ to the end of the quire. According to E. G. Turner’s classic study, The Typology of the Early Codex, this pattern of quire arrangement is the normal order in papyrus codices.18 Figure 1 illustrates the arrangement of the two extant quires from Codex Tchacos. This hypothetical arrangement, however, does not account for pages 31/32. If James ends on page 30 and the Gospel of Judas begins at the top of page 33, then what happened to 31/32? The obvious explanation would be that the sheet containing 31/32 is lost. Yet this hypothesis is problematic because it requires at least two additional assumptions. First, in order to account for the other side of the sheet upon which 31/32 were inscribed, one must assume that either (a) there was a second front flyleaf in the codex (A/B in Figure 1); or (b) Quire 2 had a tenth, outer sheet containing 31/32 + 69/70; or (c) pages 31/32 was a stub, a single leaf inserted into the codex. Even more problematic is that one must also assume either that (a) James ended on page 32, not 30, in which case the conclusion of the version in CT would have contained nearly two more pages of material than the version in Nag Hammadi Codex V; or (b) another short tractate was inscribed on 31/32 between James and Judas; or (c) the missing pages were enumerated as 31 and 32, but left blank for some inexplicable reason. There is no evidence to support any of these explanations. In light of these difficulties, I agree with Wurst that the simplest explanation for the absence of pages 31/32 is that the scribe accidentally enumerated what was supposed to be page 31 as 33.19 Therefore the first quire would have had 8 sheets and the second quire 9 sheets, as illustrated in Figure 1.

  17

Gregor Wurst, Critical Edition, 27–33, esp. 31–32. E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 65. 19 Wurst, Critical Edition, 32. 18



109

D. Codicology and Cost of Production

Figure 1: Quires 1 and 2 QUIRE

1 (8 sheets)

2 (9 sheets)

PAGES [A/B ?]20 [C/D] 1Ĺ/2ĺ 3/4 5/6 7/8 9/10 11/12 13/14 15/16 17/18 19/20 21/22 23/24 25/26 27/28 29/30 [31/32 ?] 33Ĺ/34ĺ 35/36 37/38 39/40 41/42 43/44 45/46 47/48 49/50 51/52 53/54 55/56 57/58 59/60 61/62 63/64 65/66 [67/68]

TRACTATE

Letter of Peter to Philip (1–9)

James (10–30)

Gospel of Judas (33–58)

W[ilderness] (59–?)

  20

I include A/B + 31/32 only to indicate the possibility that such a sheet existed. But it is more likely that 31/32 are absent due to the scribe’s pagination error.

110

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

Such high sheet-counts in the quires of a multi-quire codex are themselves significant for the history of codex technology. According to E. G. Turner, there are no incontrovertible examples of multiple-quire codices, the quires of which contain more than 7 sheets each (septeniones). Therefore quires 1 and 2 of Codex Tchacos, which have 8 and 9 sheets respectively, offer the first unequivocal examples of octoniones and noniones used in a multiple-quire codex.21 Furthermore, because we possess a small fragment of Codex Tchacos inscribed with the page number ѳƉџ (108), along with the decorative diplai (>>>) that frequently adorn pagination in this Codex, we can speculate about how many additional sheets and quires the Codex may have contained.22 The fact that the Codex had a page 108 means there must have been at least a third quire which would have contained no fewer than 10 sheets:

  21

See Turner, Typology, 63–64. Rodolphe Kasser speculated that P. Bodmer II may have contained a 9-sheet quire, but the evidence remains ambiguous. Nag Hammadi Codex I offers another example of a large quire in what is technically a multi-quire codex, though one which, according to James Robinson, “is not what one usually means by a multi-quire codex, namely a codex with a relatively large number of relatively small quires (from 2 to 7 sheets).” According to Robinson’s analysis, NHC I contains 3 quires; the first consists of 22 sheets, not unlike the size of single-quire codices (compare NHC IV, V, VI, IX and XI), while quires 2 and 3 consist of 8 and 6 sheets respectively. Although Kasser suggests that the final quires may have been added as an afterthought (cf. Tractatus Tripartitus, 1, 12n4), Robinson rightly observes that one would, then, have to assume “a considerable miscalculation by the scribe of the space needed for that tractate [i.e., NHC I,5].” He also notes the oddity of the fact that the quire-builder did not simply combine quires 2 and 3 into a single, 14-sheet quire. Hence Robinson concludes that “Codex I, though consisting of three quires, seems not fully at home in the multi-quire tradition. It is hardly to be classed unambiguously as a multi-quire codex in the sense of a technological advance over the others.” See James Robinson, ed., The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Introduction (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 39–40. E. G. Turner (Typology, 60) includes the Nag Hammadi Codices among his evidence, including information from the Facsimile Edition, but does not appear to have been informed by Robinson’s complete analysis. 22 No photograph of this fragment (Ohio 4594) has yet been published, and I thank Professor Wurst for sharing a digital copy of it with me in advance. Although the character ѳ is only partially visible on the fragment’s recto, it is clearly visible on the verso. There, however, only the ѳ is visible, and the following character is damaged in the lacuna. But in order to maintain the proper succession of sheets in the codex, the pagination on the verso should be reconstructed as ѳѝƉ, (107, not ѳѡƉ, 109) unless, that is, one assumes yet a second error in pagination somewhere after page 60, the last identifiable page number in quire 2.



111

D. Codicology and Cost of Production

Figure 2: Hypothetical Quire 3, assuming 108 as the final page QUIRE

3 (at least 10 sheets)

PAGES [69ĺ/70Ĺ] [71/72] [73/74] [75/76] [77/78] [79/80] [81/82] [83/84] [85/86] [87/88] [89/90] [91/92] [93/94] [95/96] [97/98] [99/100] [101/102] [103/104] [105/106] [107Ĺ]/108ĺ

TRACTATE

?

?

Figure 2 illustrates the minimum number of sheets the Codex must have contained in order to include page 108. However, this model is complicated by a number of factors. First of all, there is no reason to assume that 108 was the final page of the Codex. Second, the model requires that Quire 3 had at least 10 sheets, which though not impossible, is a larger grouping than Quires 1 and 2. As I noted above, there is no unambiguous precedent for a quire with as many as 10 sheets in a multi-quire codex, although Quires 1 and 2 are unusually large as well. Whether Quire 3 consisted of 10 sheets or more must, then, remain an open question. Yet even more problematic for the reconstruction in Figure 2 is the fact that page 108 has horizontal fibers. This model must assume, then, that the sheet with 69/70 + 107/108 was arranged with vertical fibers on top and horizontal fibers on bottom, in contrast to the pattern in Quires 1 and 2. Such inconsistency is possible since quire-builders were not always consis-

112

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

tent in how they arranged the sheets, and accidents in the order of sheets did occur.23 However, while Turner provides examples of quires in which fiber directions alternate one sheet to the next, so that like fibers face each other (ĹĺĺĹ), he gives no examples where different patterns were used from one quire to the next within a single codex. Since, therefore, the first two quires of Codex Tchacos were constructed consistently with horizontal fibers on top, it would not be implausible to posit that the other quires in the codex were constructed after the same pattern. If we assume that all the quires in the Codex were constructed like Quires 1 and 2, then the horizontal fibers of page 108 would require yet a fourth quire with no fewer than two sheets: Figure 3: Hypothetical Quires 3 and 4 (horizontal fibers up) QUIRE

3 (9 sheets)

4 (2 sheets)  

PAGES [69Ĺ/70ĺ] [71/72] [73/74] [75/76] [77/78] [79/80] [81/82] [83/84] [85/86] [87/88] [89/90] [91/92] [93/94] [95/96] [97/98] [99/100] [101/102] [103/104] [105/106] [107]/108ĺ [109/110] [111/112]

TRACTATE

?

?

23 As Turner (Typology, 68) cautions: “The possibility that a scribe has confused the proper order of succession should be borne in mind when one is attempting to work out the original make-up from fragments.”



113

D. Codicology and Cost of Production

Given the fiber directions in Quires 1 and 2, I find such a model quite plausible, especially since there is no reason to assume that page 108 was the final page in the Codex. Of course we do not know exactly how many sheets Quires 3 and 4 would have contained. If Quire 3 had only 8 sheets like Quire 1, then Quire 4 would necessarily contain 4 sheets (and so on and so forth): Figure 4: Hypothetical Quires 3 and 4 QUIRE

3 (8 sheets)

4 (4 sheets)

PAGES [69Ĺ/70ĺ] [71/72] [73/74] [75/76] [77/78] [79/80] [81/82] [83/84] [85/86] [87/88] [89/90] [91/92] [93/94] [95/96] [97/98] [99/100] [101Ĺ/102ĺ] [103/104] [105/106] [107]/108ĺ [109/110] [111/112] [113/114] [115/116]

TRACTATE

?

?

?

114

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

If Quires 3 and 4 were about the same size as the first two quires (8–9 sheets) then there may have originally been up to 140 pages in the Codex: Figure 5: Hypothetical Quires 3 and 4 QUIRE

3 (9 sheets)

4 (9 sheets)



PAGES [69/70] [71/72] [73/74] [75/76] [77/78] [79/80] [81/82] [83/84] [85/86] [87/88] [89/90] [91/92] [93/94] [95/96] [97/98] [99/100] [101/102] [103/104] [105/106] [107]/108ĺ [109/110] [111/112] [113/114] [115/116] [117/118] [119/120] [121/122] [123/124] [125/126] [127/128] [129/130] [131/132] [133/134] [135/136] [137/138] [139/140]

TRACTATE

?

?

?

?

D. Codicology and Cost of Production

115

In summary, my analysis shows that Codex Tchacos originally included no fewer than 27 sheets arranged in three quires (Figures 1–2). In all likelihood, however, there were even more than 108 pages, and most likely a fourth quire as well (Figures 3–5). Now if we add up the amount of papyrus used to produce the Codex, and estimate the approximate number of lines copied onto its pages, we can speculate to some extent about how much it would have cost to produce in fourth-century Egypt. Wurst measures the length of the roll used to produce Quire 1 at 251 cm (consisting of two kollemata, measuring 105 cm and 146 cm respectively). He measures the roll used to make Quire 2 at 290.5 cm in length (also consisting of two kollemata, measuring 107 cm and 183.5 cm respectively). 24 Therefore the total length of papyrus from the first two quires totals 541.5 cm. To this amount we can add approximately 318 cm, to account for the no less than 10 sheets necessary to include 108 pages (although, as we have seen, there were probably even more).25 Therefore the amount of papyrus used to produce Codex Tchacos would total no less than some 859 cm. Now if the standard papyrus roll in antiquity was about 340 cm in length,26 then the Codex would require just over 2.5 rolls (850 cm) to produce. However, since it is doubtful that an  

24 Wurst, Critical Edition, 31. The size of these kollemata may at first seem implausible given E. G. Turner’s observation that “the widest kollema I have noted is 32.5 cm” (Typology, 48). However, in an appendix to Turner’s chapter (p. 53), he withdraws his skepticism regarding the production of longer kollemata in light of James Robinson’s analysis of the Nag Hammadi Codices, which include kollemata of up to 160 cm in breadth (see Robinson, Facsimile Edition . . . : Introduction, 61–70). Further evidence of such wide kollemata can be found in P. Berol. 8502 (cf. Robinson, op. cit., 70), and P. Bodmer IV, XXV and XXVI (ed. R. Kasser; cf. Turner, op. cit., 47). As Turner (p. 53) observes, “A roll without kolleseis of a length of about 2 m. would have been constructed using the full height (about seven feet) of the papyrus stem. If such rolls were made, they would appear to be a novelty designed to meet the requirements of codex-makers.” Wider kollemata would eliminate the frequent appearance of kolleseis (the areas where sheets are pasted together) thus creating a higher aesthetic quality. As Robinson (op. cit., 66) notes, the absence of such wide (higher-quality) kollemata in Nag Hammadi Codices IV, V and roll 4 of VIII corresponds to the lower-quality technology evident in other features of those codices, such as binding methods and the construction of their covers. See similarly, James Robinson, “The Construction of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib, ed. Martin Krause (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 170–190. 25 The average width of the 17 sheets in Quires 1 and 2 is 31.8 cm per sheet, just fractionally higher than the actual width of the still-intact sheet containing pages 49/50 + 51/52 at 31 cm. See Wurst, Critical Edition, 31. 26 See T. C. Skeat, “The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex,” ZPE 45 (1982): 169–175, esp. 170; cf. Roger Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 55.

116

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

ancient bookmaker could purchase fractions of rolls, he probably would have bought at least 3 rolls (or even more if there were a fourth quire). With respect to scribal labor, measured in antiquity by the number of lines copied, we can estimate that 108 pages or so, with an average of 26 lines per page, would have contained approximately 2,808 lines. With these figures in hand, we may estimate the production cost of Codex Tchacos by adapting Roger Bagnall’s figures for the cost of a mammoth fourth-century Bible (which he estimates in terms of a papyrus codex, copied by a “second-quality” hand, in a single-column format): Cost Comparison between a Fourth-Century Bible and Codex Tchacos FOURTH-CENTURY B IBLE27 Papyrus Scribal Labor Binding Total (gold solidi)

CODEX TCHACOS

78 rolls

1.33 solidi

3 rolls

.05 solidus

136,677 lines

10.2 solidi

2,808 lines

.2 solidus

1 solidus

.33 solidus

12.5

0.6

Despite the somewhat hypothetical nature of this figure, it accords quite well with independent evidence for the cost of “shorter books” in lateantique Egypt (i.e., shorter than a complete Bible, which was rare). Anne Boud’hors’s study of book prices recorded on ostraka from Thebes indicate that the cost of an unbound short book could be around 1/3 a solidus,28 just a bit more than the 1/4 a solidus that I estimate for the material and labor cost of Codex Tchacos (which again, takes into account only the first   27 Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 54–57. Bagnall defines a Bible as a volume with “about 765,000 words,” containing the Old and New Testaments and Apocryphal Books (p. 54; cf. 51). The somewhat hypothetical size of Bagnall’s Bible does not have a direct impact on my estimated costs for CT, since his totals are based on prices per unit (e.g., one papyrus roll cost 3.33 talents; 100 lines copied in a second-quality hand cost 20 denarii), which he converts into Constantinian solidi. His table provides prices for Bibles copied on both parchment and papyrus in four different qualities of scribal hands (54–55; 57). Based on Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices issued in 301 C.E., Bagnall (56–57) classifies the ranks of scribal hands as: (1) calligraphic; (2) second quality; (3) tabellio, a clerk’s hand; and (4) documentary (though the latter does not appear in the Edict). My estimate assumes that the scribal hand of CT ranks as second quality, which I understand to be one rank below the fine calligraphic hand of a book such as Codex Sinaiticus. 28 Anne Boud’hors, “Copie et circulation des livres dans la région thébaine,” in ‘Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villages . . .’: Thèbes et sa région aus époques hellénistique, romaine et Byzantine, ed. Alain Delattre and Paul Heilporn (Brussels: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 2008), 149–161, esp. 160. Cf. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 51, 62.



E. The Scribe and Owner(s)

117

108 pages). According to Boud’hors, to bind such a short book would nearly double the cost by an additional 1/3 a solidus (a trimesion), as the above table indicates.29 What do these prices mean in terms of fourth-century living expenses? According to Bagnall, documentary sources indicate that circa 341 C.E. an artaba (=38.78 liters) of wheat cost about 24 talents, while a standard roll of papyrus cost as low as 3 1/3 talents.30 The papyrus needed for a complete Bible would cost some 259.74 talents, or 10.8 artabas of wheat. Bagnall estimates that the equivalent cost in gold solidi would be 1.33, that is .12 solidi per artaba. The total cost of a bound papyrus Bible at 12.5 solidi would, then, amount to about 104 artabas (4,033 liters) of wheat. Mutatis mutandis, the total cost of Codex Tchacos would be equivalent to about 5 artabas (193.9 liters) of wheat. Now given the fact that, according to Bagnall, 3 or 4 artabas of wheat could feed an adult for “several months,” 31 the cost of producing Codex Tchacos would have been substantial for any individual. This suggests, then, that whoever produced the Codex was a person – or more likely a community – with some financial means, that could afford to spend the equivalent of several months of wheat supplies on books.

E. The Scribe and Owner(s) The uncial hand and various practices that the scribe employed when copying the Codex indicate that he was very well trained. The scribe was evidently conscious of the aesthetic, visual quality of the manuscript, and so frequently copied dicolons (:) and diplai (>) as ‘fillers’ at the end of lines in order to give the textual column a more even, justified appearance (see Appendix C: Ic and IVc). 32 A similar visual aesthetic was sometimes achieved by writing characters at the end of a line in ligature, for example ѯѹ as ѹR (16.22, 22.19, 25.11, 37.13, 43.22, 55.1, 55.12, 56.14, 61.13) and ѩѯѹ as ѩ ѹR (47.12, 50.11).   29

The cost of binding in my table is based on Boud’hors’s study (as it is in Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 57), while the cost of material and labor are based on fourth-century sources cited by Bagnall. 30 Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 55. For an accessible survey of “Money and Measures” in late antique Egypt, see Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 330–332. 31 Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 63. 32 For discussion of line fillers in ancient manuscripts, see E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971) 5n12. Cf. Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996), 78.

118

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

Furthermore, the scribe employed a number of readers’ aids, including page numbers, punctuations marks, and various forms of section divisions. Dicolons and blank spaces, either alone or in combination, are used throughout the Codex to mark pauses (the equivalent of a modern comma), stops (end of sentence), and changes of speaker in dialogue texts (see Appendix C: Ia–b; IIa–b; IIIa–b; IVa). Rows of diplai (e.g., >>>>) and the diple obelismene (>ʊ), sometimes in combination with dicolons and/or blank spaces, are used to mark the end of tractates as well as what are probably sub-sections within tractates (Appendix C: IIc, IIIc, IVb, IVd). In two cases the scribe drew a coronis sign ( ĝ) in the left hand margin, apparently to denote the beginning of an important section in the text (Appendix C: VI); in another case (28.20) a paragraphus (horizontal bar) was used, though in the right-hand margin, probably to signal a change in speaker.33 In a number of other cases, the scribe deliberately marked-off certain passages visually by ekthesis, that is, by copying the first and/or second letters of a line so that they protrude into the left-hand margin (see Appendix C: V). By the third and fourth centuries, Christian scribes began using ekthesis to mark section divisions in manuscripts of the New Testament, though at that time there was no standardization in division. 34 Most interesting is that since the scribe of Codex Tchacos did not consistently use ekthesis throughout the Codex as a means of marking regular section divisions, it is quite likely that the passages in which it was used contain some notable content that was special for the scribe. I will return to a discussion of some of these passages below when I consider what ancient readers may have found interesting about this Codex. The fact that the scribe consistently employed such readers’ aids suggests that he and/or whoever commissioned the codex may have intended it to be read in a group setting where a smooth delivery or “performance” of the text would be desirable. Larry Hurtado and others have argued that such aids found in early Christian manuscripts probably reflect “efforts to facilitate the public/liturgical usage of texts.”35   33

For a discussion of the use of such marks in ancient manuscripts, see Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 8–12; Kathleen McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1992), 7–25; William Johnson, “The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose Texts,” ZPE 100 (1994), 65–68. 34 On the use of ekthesis in ancient manuscripts, see Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 9, 14; Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1979) 16–18; Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 179. 35 Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 178. Cf. Scott D. Charlesworth, “Public and Private – Second- and Third-century Gospel Manuscripts,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. Craig Evans (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 148–175,



E. The Scribe and Owner(s)

119

Although we have no information about who owned Codex Tchacos, previous studies have stressed that it was produced by a ‘Gnostic’ community separate from and even in conflict with “the majority Church.” Alastair Logan, for example, hypothesizes that the Codex belonged to “the Gnostic cult movement” in late third-century Egypt (he advocates an early date based on the carbon-dating analysis) whose members lived amid the imperial persecutions under emperors Decius (249–52) and Diocletian (303–12). From the Codex’s noticeable theme of persecution and suffering, and the Gospel of Judas’s negative portrayal of the twelve disciples, Logan concludes that the Codex’s community “felt threatened both by pagan authorities and by Catholics.”36 According to his final analysis, Codex Tchacos would appear to be the work of a third century Gnostic community in Middle Egypt, perhaps in the vicinity of Oxyrhynchus, conscious of the threat of persecution by outsiders, seeking to confirm its own identity, and reflecting the process, beginning later in the century, of translating Greek original texts into Coptic. The preferred self-identification of the community, at least in the Gospel of Judas, seems to have been ‘the great, kingless, incorruptible generation (race) of Seth,’ i.e., ‘Sethians’ . . .37

In a similar vein, Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhard Bethge characterize the Codex as a collection of gnostic apocalypses, and speak of “a certain ‘distance’ (eine gewisse ‘Distanz’)” between its readers and “the majority Church (Mehrheitskirche).”38 It is not clear to me, however, that one can so easily generalize about “the Gnostic cult” over against “Catholics” or “the majority Church” in fourth-century Egypt. In fact I am not altogether sure what one means by “the majority Church” at this time since it is well known that even the ordained clergy of the Christian churches in Egypt and Alexandria were staunchly divided among themselves over major questions of theology, praxis and social organization. Different bishops and presbyters (not to mention laity) sided with various parties sympathetic to the teachings of   esp. 148: “In a public setting where immediacy was called for, punctuation, lectional aids and various kinds of sense breaks in the text could greatly assist the task of lector.” For discussions of punctuation and sense divisions in early Christian manuscripts, see Hurtado, op. cit., 179–182; Charlesworth, op. cit., 149–158; H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 37–38; Henry A. Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection (New York: MacMillan, 1918), 12–19; Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV: P75, Evangile de Luc chap. 3–24 and Evangile de Jean chap. 1–15, 2 vols. (Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961), vol. 1, 14–19. 36 Logan, “The Tchacos Codex,” 3, 12–13. 37 Logan, “The Tchacos Codex,” 21–22. Although Logan asserts that the community’s self-designation was ‘the great, kingless, incorruptible generation (race) of Seth,’ that phrase never appears in Codex Tchacos. 38 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 420, 439–440.

120

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

the presbyter Arius, or the bishop Melitius, or the patriarch Alexander and his successor Athanasius. 39 Throughout the fourth century, all three of these parties vied for imperial patronage and leadership of the Christian churches in Egypt. Athanasius strove throughout his career to keep Arian and Melitian clergy from taking charge of the administration of the Egyptian Church, though he often failed to do so, and spent many years of his career in exile trying to win back the favor of the emperors.40 To speak so facilely of “the majority Church” in fourth-century Egypt obscures the party politics and fierce competitions that characterize this time period of Egyptian Christianity. As David Brakke has shown, Athanasius directed his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, famous for its list of canonical books, specifically against Arian teachers whose libraries included whatever they considered edifying and useful for instruction, and against various martyr cults, the supporters of which Athanasius lumps together under the rubric of ‘Melitians,’ the selfproclaimed Church of the Martyrs.41 The fact that Athanasius felt the need to establish a closed canon of scripture demonstrates that there was no agreement among Christians – even those within the so-called majority Church – over which books they considered permissible for reading, study and education. Despite the fact that some scholars prefer to differentiate so-called Gnostic books from Christian ones, I see no a priori reason why Christians at this time would not have been interested in the diverse range of attitudes, theologies, myths, and practices advocated in books such as Codex Tchacos, the Nag Hammadi Codices, and the Berlin Codex. 42 The  

39 The sources illuminating conflicts between Arians, Melitians and those loyal to Alexander and, later, Athanasius are thoroughly discussed by C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 115–169. 40 For an accessible summary of Athanasius’s career and theology, see David Brakke, “Athanasius,” in The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Francis (London: Routledge, 2000), 1102–1127. For a more in depth treatment which emphasizes the political dimensions of Athanasius’s life, see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). 41 David Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” Harvard Theological Review (1994): 395–419. 42 Stephen Emmel, for example, maintains a distinction between Gnostic and Christian books in his analysis of Coptic literature, “The Christian Book in Egypt: Innovation and the Coptic Tradition,” in The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition, ed. John L. Sharpe III and Kimberly van Kampen (The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 1998), 39. Similarly, Alexandr Khosroyev, Die Bibliothek von Nag Hammadi (Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1995), 98, concludes that one can say nothing about the fourth-century owners of the Nag Hammadi codices, except that they belonged to “some religious communities . . . whose members possessed a strong syncretistic mentality and in no way were tradi-



E. The Scribe and Owner(s)

121

collection of the New Testament itself reflects a similar late-antique process of recycling texts originally composed by authors who lived in very different social environments and advocated widely divergent theological perspectives. Codex Tchacos fits very well into this picture of openness among many Egyptian Christians to a diversity of books. Indeed, the meager evidence we have about people who owned such “apocryphal books” suggests that they were members of Christian churches. Epiphanius tells us that the eighty some gnostikoi he encountered were “hidden in the church” and were only excommunicated from their parish after he reported them and their illicit books to local bishops.43 He also recalls how a certain hermit named Peter, who may have owned some of the books attributed to Allogenes, held the office of presbyter in a Palestinian church until he was “accused and convicted of being a gnostic” (40.1.3–5). Such anecdotes suggest a much deeper social integration of so-called Gnostics in Christian churches of the fourth century, at a time which scholars usually characterize by the manifold fragmentation of Gnosticism long after its alleged split from Christianity. 44   tional.” For studies that attempt to understand such “apocryphal books” as products of Christian Egypt, see Michael Williams, “Interpreting the Nag Hammadi Library as ‘Collection(s)’ in the History of ‘Gnosticism(s)’,” in Les Textes de Nag Hammadi et le Problème de leur Classification, ed. Louis Painchaud and Anne Pasquier (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995), 3–50; Michael Williams and Lance Jenott, “Inside the Covers of Codex VI,” in Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica, 1025–1052; Lance Jenott and Elaine Pagels, “Antony’s Letters and Nag Hammadi Codex I: Sources of Religious Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt,” in Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.4 (2010): 557–589. 43 Epiphanius, Panarion, 26.17.8–9. He does not say where he encountered these gnostikoi, but Egypt may be implied when he compares himself to the biblical Joseph who was tempted by the “villainous Egyptian wife” (26.17.7). In Panarion 39.1.2 he explicitly says that he encountered sectarians in Egypt. 44 See, for example, the hypothetical history of the Sethians plotted by John D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (4Xpbec: Presses de l’8QLYHUVLWp Laval, 2001), 255–301. According to Turner’s narrative (259–260, 301), “[t]oward the end of the second century, Sethianism gradually became estranged from a Christianity increasingly on the road to a polemical orthodoxy which rejected the rather docetic Sethian interpretation of Christ”; then after a phase of attendance in Platonic schools lasting throughout the third century, “in the early to mid-fourth century, Sethians became increasingly fragmented into various derivative and other sectarian gnostic groups” such as the kind named by Epiphanius. While this could have been the experience of some “Sethians,” the evidence from Epiphanius, as well as the markedly Christian scribal features of the Nag Hammadi Codices, Codex Tchacos, and the Berlin Codex (8502), suggest that whoever owned these books in the fourth and fifth centuries still participated in Christian culture.

122

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

Given this diverse range of people and books within Christianity in fourth-century Egypt, one can imagine many more possibilities for the owner(s) of Codex Tchacos than simply a hypothetical ‘Gnostic cult movement’ – for example, a Christian scholar supported by a patron; a community gathered around a spiritual teacher; even a monastery or parish church with money to spend on books. In any event, the scribal practices evident in the Codex confirm that it was produced by a Christian scribe, who most likely worked in a Christian community (as suggested by the readers’ aids discussed above). Most telling are the Codex’s nomina sacra, the practice of visually delineating such holy words as God (ѡљѯѵ), Jesus (ѣџѵѯѹѵ), and Lord (ѥѹѳѣѯѵ), among others, by writing them in a contracted form with a supralinear stroke: ѡƩѵ, ѣƩѵ or ѣƩџƩѵ, and ѥƩѵ. As Hurtado observes, the nomina sacra manifest early Christian reverence for what the words represent, and amount to a distinctively Christian scribal practice. Indeed, so distinctive is the practice that paleographers tend to consider the presence of nomina sacra in a manuscript as a strong indication that it comes from Christian hands.45

Coptic scribes in Egypt adapted this practice from their Greek colleagues (often times the same scribes worked with both languages)46 and applied it to the equivalent Coptic words for God (ѫѯѹѷљ) and Lord (ȝѯљѣѵ). The scribe of Codex Tchacos employed what scholars identify as the most common forms of nomina sacra, including those for God (ѱŶѫŶƩȡ), Jesus (ǼƩѵ and ǼџƩѵ), Lord (ȝƩѵ), Spirit (ѱƩѫƩё), the holy city of Jerusalem (ǼƩѧƩџƩѩ, ѡƩѣѧƩџƩѩ) and Israel (>ѣџƩѧ@ if the reconstruction is correct).47

  45

Larry Hurtado, “The Earliest Evidence of an Emerging Christian Material and Visual Culture: The Codex, the Nomina Sacra and the Staurogram,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel R. Desjardins (Waterloo, Ontario: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 2000), 277. 46 For Egyptian scribes working in bilingual environments, see Roger Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 238–240; David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 248–256; Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 22–23, 175–176. 47 See Appendix C, XII: Nomina Sacra in CT. For discussion of nomina sacra in ancient Christian manuscripts, see Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 43–94; Malcolm Choat, Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepolis, 2006), 119–125; Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Oxford University Press, 1981), 36–37; Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief; and Kurt Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Vol. I: biblische Papyri (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976), 420–428.



F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos

123

In addition, the scribe of Codex Tchacos embellished the manuscript with iconography, though not the kind of esoteric illustrations that some scholars describe as Gnostic pictures such as lion-headed demons or a “cock-headed, snake-footed Seth.”48 Rather, the scribe decorated the final page of the Letter of Peter to Philip with conventional Christian crucifixes: a diamond-style cross on the left, a Greek cross on the right, and a crux ansata (ankh) in the middle, adding a special Egyptian fashion to the Codex. Similar artistic embellishments (ankh and Latin crosses) appear on the fly-leaf of Nag Hammadi Codex I, but those in Codex Tchacos were drawn more artistically with an embossed visual quality that exhibits the scribe’s skill. As scholars have noted, such crucifix icons in ancient Christian manuscripts are the earliest known visual representation of Jesus’ passion.49 It is probably not a coincidence, then, that in this Codex they accompany a tractate famous for its almost creedal assertion that Jesus “came, and was [crucified], and bore a crown of thorns, and [wore] a robe of purple, and was nailed to a tree, and was buried in a tomb, and rose from the dead.”50 The crucifixes not only added a fine visual aesthetic to the codex, but reminded those who saw them of the divine power inherent in Christ’s passion, especially his victory over Death. The sum of this evidence – the scribal practices, the nomina sacra, and the iconography – suggests that Codex Tchacos was produced by a Christian scribe and community who shared a common scribal, material and visual culture with other fourth-century Christians, including the visual representation of Christ’s passion through the symbol of the cross.

F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos It now remains to ask what in this book would have attracted Egyptian Christians. As scholars have observed, one of the most prominent themes in Codex Tchacos is the issue of persecution and suffering, illustrated with stories about the violent deaths of Jesus and other martyrs such as the   48

Paul Corby Finney “Did Gnostics Make Pictures?” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol. 1: The School of Valentinus, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 434– 454; Birger A. Pearson, “Gnostic Iconography,” in idem, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 249–267; idem, Ancient Gnosticism (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 48–49. 49 See Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 136–139; Choat, Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri, 114–118. 50 CT 7.24–8.1; cf. NHC VIII 139.15–21. The bottom half of CT page 7 was recovered from a private collection in Ohio in 2009, and thus is not included in the Critical Edition. A photograph of it is available on Professor Wurst’s website.

124

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

apostles and James.51 Throughout the Codex, Jesus teaches that while the mortal bodies of the martyrs may suffer and die, their true selves – their souls (20.6; 43.15) or “inner person” (6.3) – shall go unharmed, if, that is, they possesses the right understanding of God and arm themselves “with the power of my Father” (6.8). The suffering of Jesus’ own mortal body serves as an example since his spirit triumphed over death and the demonic world rulers.52 Scholars have interpreted the significance of this theme in various ways. For Brankaer and Bethge, it reflects a marked interest on the part of the Codex’s ancient readers in “soul literature” and “liberation from the body and archontic spheres.”53 Alastair Logan, who dates the production of the Codex to the second half of the third century, finds a Gnostic community searching for encouragement amid persecution from the Roman government and Catholic Church.54 Somewhat differently, Karen King characterizes the Codex as a collection of texts which offer “preparation for martyrdom,” that is, literature intended to train potential martyrs by encouraging them to overcome fear and grief, to focus on heavenly rewards, and to reflect upon the victorious deaths of Jesus and the saints as examples to imitate. King concludes that, Although presumably the Roman persecutions of the second and third centuries provided the central impetus for Christians composing, reading, and studying these works, the fact that Codex Tchacos was inscribed in the fourth century indicates that the texts in it, like martyr acts and exhortations, continued to be alive in practice even after the persecutions ended. Whether they were read for general spiritual self-formation and theological education or some other aim is hard to say. 55

It is indeed difficult to know how ancient readers understood their books, and to what ends they applied them. Yet I would like to build upon King’s observation that these texts took on a new life in the fourth century after the cessation of imperial persecutions. The stories and revelations offered in Codex Tchacos must have had natural appeal to many Christians living in fourth-century Egypt who witnessed the rise of great martyr cults and the kind of zealous devotion to the saints that inspired supporters of bishop Melitius to hang signs reading “Ekklesia of the Martyrs” outside their churches.56 Athanasius’s annual Festal Letters show that the popularity of  

51 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 437–439; King, “Martyrdom and its Discontents,” passim. 52 For discussion of the key passages in the Codex, see King, “Martyrdom and its Discontents,” 25–33. 53 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 420–421. 54 Logan, “The Tchacos Codex,” 8, 12, 20. 55 King, “Martyrdom and its Discontents,” 39–40. 56 Epiphanius, Panarion, 48.4.7. For a general treatment of the Egyptian cult of the martyrs, see Theofried Baumeister, Martyr Invictus: Der Märtyrer als Sinnbild der Er-



F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos

125

martyr cults, and their ‘apocryphal books’ as he labeled them, posed constant challenges to his efforts at creating an Egyptian church unified under the administration of the Alexandrian patriarch.57 Endowed with the power of victorious martyrs, these cults assumed roles traditionally played by Egyptian temples and shrines that promised their clients protection from enemies, miraculous healings and fertility, and answers to difficult questions through oracular pronouncements. Peter Brown has observed that Many Egyptian Christians seem to have assumed that the martyrs, as ‘unconquered’ heroes who had overcome the demons of the lower air by their heroic deaths, could now be prevailed upon, by the prayers of believers, to torture the demons yet further (in a long Egyptian tradition, by which higher gods bullied and threatened their subordinates) to reveal their own unearthly knowledge of the future.”58

In many situations, however, those seeking access to divine power did not want to tap into the fortune-telling ability of spirits, but instead hoped to draw on the power of the martyrs and their god to “bully” demons away altogether. As the magical papyri illustrate so well, Egyptians lived in a cosmos pervaded by demons at all levels, from the far off stars orbiting the skies down to their farms, kitchens and bedrooms.59 In a world swelling with malicious spirits, everyday affairs such as the safety of one’s family, health, love life, fertility, the crops, new business ventures – even success at the race track – could hang in jeopardy unless one procured protection from unwanted demonic influence by a powerful divine patron. Thus the extensive information about angels, demons, and stars found in Codex Tchacos, and its promise of an even greater power available from “the preexistent Father” provides yet another example of what David Frankfurter identifies as  

lösung in der Legende und im Kult der frühen koptischen Kirche. Zur .RQWLQXLWlt des lgyptischen Denkens (Münster: Verlag Regensburg, 1972), esp. 51–86. 57 Athanasius’ forty-first and forty-second Festal Letters, written in 369 and 370, are directed against martyr cults who promised divine protection and oracular revelations to their clients, and even exhumed the bodies of supposed martyrs to use as relics. See David Brakke, “‘Outside the Places, Within the Truth’: Athanasius of Alexandria and the Localization of the Holy,” in Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, ed. David Frankfurter (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 445–481. See similarly, Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt,” 410–417. 58 Peter Brown, Authority and the Sacred (Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 1995), 74. 59 For examples of the various everyday issues for which Egyptian Christians turned to ‘magical’ solutions, see the spells and amulets collected in Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).

126

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

an already pronounced tradition in Egyptian Christianity that put an obsessive focus on demons, their whereabouts, appearances, effects, and manner of exorcism . . . Holy men, the monks, the abbots, the bishops thus all became heroes of a dualistic universe presented in Egyptian Christian literature and preaching. And much of their deep appeal to local communities would have required that these communities buy into that dualistic universe, that they accept a cosmos polarized with demons as an everyday reality.60

In such an environment, the appeal of Codex Tchacos probably had more to do with practical information about demons and access to apotropaic power than any abstract theology. Each of the first three tractates of the Codex offers stories – though quite different ones – about how such a “dualistic universe” populated by demonic powers came to exist (3.18–4.21; 10.21–27, cf. 21.4–22.15; 51.4–52.19). Much of the dialogue in the Codex focuses on the threat posed by demons: the apostles ask Jesus “[why] do [the powers] fight against [us]?” (3.9–10); Jesus explains that “they fight against the inner person” (6.2–3); James knows that there are a “number of powers who fight [against me]” (14.8–9); Judas learns about all the rulers and stars who exercise dominion over humanity; and Allogenes, not unlike a late antique holy man of the desert, must confront and overcome Satan himself in the wilderness.61 Readers of Codex Tchacos would have learned that even after bodily death their souls will encounter demonic “toll collectors” who collect tolls for sin and may even carry away one’s soul (20.2–6). The fact that the scribe of Codex Tchacos marked off many passages pertaining to demonic powers in ekthesis further indicates that he and its fourth-century readers had a special interest in information about demons.62 So, for example, the first visible instance of ekthesis in the Codex (12.13) marks James’s question about the number of heavenly “hebdomads,” followed by Jesus’ response, also set in ekthesis (12.18), that there are “twelve hebdomads” along with seventy-two lower companions. Other notable passages marked by ekthesis include Jesus’ description of how he evaded the “great archon” while descending into the world (26.11); how “no [dem]on nor angel nor power will be able to see those realms that the great, holy race will see” (44.9); the story of the twelve angelic rulers created by Nebro and Saklas who “each received a share in the heavens” (51.18); as well as Jesus’ revelation to Judas about the wandering stars who lead humanity into error (54.13; 54.16).63   60

Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 273–274. For the import role that spiritual warfare and victory over demons played in the formation of the late antique holy man, see David Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006). 62 Color images of the manuscript are most easily accessible in the Critical Edition. 63 Out of 21 total instances of ekthesis visible in the manuscript, I count 13 that pertain in some way to demonic powers and their relationship with humanity: 12.13; 12.18; 61



F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos

127

The use of ekthesis to visually delineate passages that speak about demons and cosmic powers suggests that they contained some special meaning for the scribe and ancient readers of Codex Tchacos. Those who read these myths and revelations surely would have found all the information about demons, angels, and stars quite useful in practical ways for warding off unwanted spiritual influences. As Frankfurter observes, Egyptians regarded the written text itself as source of “numinous power” which “could be drawn into service for protection or healing” even by simply referring to angels and demons. Indeed, he sees Christianity’s use of texts to address everyday needs as one of the reasons for its overall success in Egypt: many of the scraps of papyrus on which biblical and New Testament verses were written in the third and fourth centuries, which have often been assumed to be mere parts of complete lectionaries, now seem to have been intended as amulets . . . The crucial element in these cases is the appearance of a “book religion” to people whose understanding of sacred text had long been associated with the concrete efficacy of the letters. It becomes another way by which the Christian institution plugged into indigenous expectations of supernatural power. 64

Codex Tchacos’s message about the enormous power available from the “the Father of [Light]” (2.6), “the Great One” (3.21), “the preexistent Father” (20.16) who reigns over all the realms “that no angel eye has seen” (47.10) surely would have “plugged into” the expectations of Egyptians who sought divine patronage from the most powerful gods available. Readers may have heard a reference to themselves in Jesus’ revelation to “the one who is mine . . . that is who you (pl.) are,” and taken comfort in the fact that Jesus “gave him authority [to] enter into the inheritance of his Father” (5.1–6). Jesus teaches the apostles, and so the readers, how to combat demons: they should come together, teach the world’s salvation, “arm yourselves with the power of my Father,” and offer prayers (6.1–10). Having done so, readers would have been encouraged by Jesus’ promise that “[I] am with your forever,” and by the example of the apostles who receive peace, glory, joy, grace and power, and then set out to preach “in the power of Jesus peacefully” (9.1–12). Even after death, Jesus says, they can bypass the demonic toll collectors unharmed if they declare their spiritual lineage: “I am the son, and I am from the Father . . . the preexistent Father” (20.12–16). Jesus’ promise in James (CT,2), that “if you say these things, you shall be saved from all of them” (21.19–20), would then appear to be fulfilled in CT,4, when Allogenes defeats Satan in the wilderness by similarly declaring his identity as “one from another race” who belongs not to Satan but to “my Father   26.11; 44.8 and 44.9; 46.5; 49.19; 51.18; 54.13; 54.16; 56.11. See Appendix C: V for a list of all the passages of the codex set in ekthesis. 64 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 268–269.

128

Chapter 4: Judas in Egypt

who is superior to all the great realms” (60.15–23). Readers may have been attracted to Codex Tchacos for its promise that they too can invoke the Father’s divine power in the face of adversity. As Frankfurter observes, “in a culture of oracular texts, another volume with even higher claims to divinity and to relevance in everyday issues would be quickly respected as such.”65 Finally, the arrangement of the tractates in Codex Tchacos may have served a catechetical and ritual function. Indeed, in reference to CT,4 Brankaer and Bethge observe that “Diese Schrift hat möglicherweise kultische Aspekte. Diese können gegenüber den anderen Texten als komplementär angesehen werden. Vielleicht ist (Allogenes) aus diesem Grunde in CT aufgenommen worden.”66 I suggest that the first three tractates, with their special instructions for combating demons and their emphasis on the victorious death of Jesus, may have served as preparatory instruction for a baptismal rite that was understood as an exorcism from Satanic power and moment of enlightenment. After reading or hearing the first three tractates, the baptismal initiate would have then identified with the figure of Allogenes in CT,4 who, like Jesus after his own baptism in the synoptic gospels, undergoes temptation by Satan “in this wilderness place” and ultimately overcomes him. In the narrative of CT,4, Allogenes is tempted by Satan (59.26–60.13), renounces membership in Satan’s race (60.19–23), and twice commands him to depart (60.15; 61.7). After Satan flees in anger, Allogenes prays for God’s help, and then receives divine illumination: “O God, you who are in the great realms, listen to my voice, have mercy on me, and save me from every evil. Look upon me and listen to me in this wilderness place. Now [let] your ineffable [light] shine on me” . . . And while I was saying this, behold, a luminous cloud surrounded [me]. I could not look at the light around it, the way it was shining. And I heard a word from the cloud and the light, and it shone over me, saying “O Allogenes, the sound of your prayer has been heard, and I have been sent here to you to tell you the good news before you leave [this place].” (61.18 –62.24)

The scribe evidently regarded this prayer as a significant passage, since he marked it with a coronis sign in the left-hand margin at 61.23–24 (one of only two instances of such a mark in the Codex: see Appendix C: VI). If   65

Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 269. Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 442. Compare Michael Williams’s analysis of the arrangement and potential ritual function of the tractate Allogenes near the end of Nag Hammadi Codex XI: “Several of the individual portions of the codex are clearly related to liturgical practice . . . There is a gradual crescendo from the more exoteric homiletic material to the mystical visions at the end. The mystical visions of Allogenes are presented as the experience of the seer Allogenes . . . [but] the point is surely to set a model of mystical ascent and vision for believers in general.” See Williams, “Interpreting the Nag Hammadi Library as ‘Collection(s)’,” 15–16. 66



F. The Appeal of Codex Tchacos

129

Codex Tchacos served a ritual function, the initiates who read it – or had it read to them – may have understood their ritual experience as a repudiation of Satan and liberation from demonic powers culminating in divine illumination. Renunciation of Satan and illumination were of course two of the most common events that ancient Christians associated with baptism.67 Moreover, the order of the tractates in Codex Tchacos creates a close connection between baptism “in the name of Jesus” and Allogenes’s repudiation of Satan and divine illumination. Toward Judas’s conclusion, Jesus teaches about the stars that exercise dominion over humanity, the liberating effects of baptism, and the obliteration of the world ruler (55.17– 57.15). The following narrative about the appearance of a luminous cloud and a revelatory voice (57.16–27) closely resembles the visionary experience of Allogenes in the next tractate (CT,4). Readers of the codex could hardly have missed the close correspondence between the two images. The fact that the scribe marked these passages in ekthesis (see 54.13; 54.16; 55.23; 55.26; 56.12; 57.16; 57.22) suggests that they had a special value for the ancient readers of the Codex. A reading of these selections may have led to further readings in the next tractate, during which the ritual initiate would have identified with Allogenes in the wilderness, renounced Satan, and then received enlightenment. If a Coptic translation of Corpus Hermeticum XIII followed in the codex, it would only enhance the ritual function since that text is famous for its theme of spiritual rebirth. In conclusion, whether or not Codex Tchacos ever served a ritual function, one need not consider it the product of “the Gnostic cult movement” in fourth-century Egypt. The evident scribal practices used to produce this Codex – especially the Christian nomina sacra and crucifix iconography – suggest that it was produced not by a splinter group that saw itself in opposition to Christianity, but by a community who shared a common scribal, material, and visual culture with contemporary Christians. I expect that a book such as Codex Tchacos would have found popularity among Egyptians attracted to Christianity for the power of its written word, stories of miraculous heroes, and promises of divine protection that could be called upon in the face of everyday problems.  

67 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009): 155–160 (Romans and Colossians), 241–242 (Justin Martyr), 309–316 (Clement of Alexandria), 400–428 (Origen), 469 (Didymus the Blind); cf. Tertullian, On Baptism, 9.9; Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 20–22; Franz Joseph Dölger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1909); Otto Böcher, Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970); idem, Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1972).



Conclusion According to traditional formulations about Gnosticism, Gnostics believed that salvation does not come through the crucifixion, nor ritual transformation, nor ethical living, but simply through the acquisition of special knowledge (gnosis) involving highly esoteric mythological ‘systems.’ Only Gnostic minds are capable of this salvation because of their divinely predetermined nature, while ordinary members of humanity have no hope. Researchers who assume the Gnostic character of a text are thus prone to find in it the various clichés that we have inherited from ancient heresiologists: for example, that Gnostics disdained ritual practices, maintained a docetic Christology, denied Jesus’ incarnation, suffering, and death, and harbored a hateful attitude toward the world. In the foregoing chapters, I have followed an approach that imagines the history of ancient Christianity without the misleading concepts of orthodoxy and Gnosticism. I find that trying to understand highly complex ancient texts through such a naïvely binary model blinds one to the full range of interpretive possibilities available. Reading the Gospel of Judas as a Christian Gospel rather than a Gnostic Gospel opens up the possibility of discovering that it may share continuities with a wider range of Christian theologies, attitudes, and behaviors. So, for example, while it is clear that Judas’s mythology differs drastically from that of other Christian authors such as Melito, Tertullian, or Athanasius, one also finds that they all assume a Christology that maintains an important distinction between Christ’s divine being and his human body. Furthermore, Judas shares with these patristic authors a dramatic, mythological interpretation of Jesus’ crucifixion: Jesus’ mortal body suffered as a sacrifice, while his immortal person remained free from harm and triumphed over the forces of evil. Although we may choose to sort different authors into separate hermeneutical boxes on the basis of specific features of their theology (e.g., commitment to the God of Israel instead of an Invisible Spirit), we must remember that they may also share much in common with respect to other issues such as Christology, soteriology, ethics, and ritual practice. In this study, I have argued that the author of Judas does not criticize all forms of sacrifice or ritual, including the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Eucharist, or baptism. According to my analysis, the author understands



Conclusion

131

baptism as a key means of salvation through which the initiate ‘wipes away’ his or her mortal body inherited from earthly Adam, and begins to participate in the victory that Jesus won over demonic powers on the cross. The pressing problem for Judas’s author was members of the nascent clergy who insisted that only they could administer the Eucharist, and who legitimated their claim by appealing to apostolic succession from Jesus’ twelve disciples. In order to undermine their authority and the integrity of their cult, the author responded by writing a new ‘Gospel’ that portrays the Twelve as wicked priests engaged in all kinds of outrageously immoral activities, including human sacrifice, which contemporary readers would have seen as dangerous and culturally subversive. The Gospel of Judas thus contributes significantly to our understanding of the Sethians’ relationship with other Christians. The traditional scholarly view regards Sethian writings as ‘Christianized’ versions of originally non-Christian texts composed by Jewish sectarians. 1 Sethian texts are therefore often regarded as only superficially Christian. Admittedly, Judas’s author embraces a theology quite different from Christians who worshipped the God of Israel. Yet his Gospel is hardly a superficially ‘Christianized’ version of a non-Christian writing. His fierce criticism of the twelve disciples, concern over the celebration of the Eucharist, and knowledge of Gospel traditions (including Mark, Matthew, and Luke-Acts) indicate his intimate involvement in Christian communities and the ecclesiastical controversies that engaged them in the second century. The dispute over church leadership and the right to conduct Eucharist which motivated Judas’s author need not suggest the existence of two opposed ritual communities (e.g., Sethian and apostolic), but is the kind of controversy that led to schism and the creation of distinct social groups. The Gospel of Judas’s mythology also sheds light on the diversity of Sethian theological innovation in the second century. As I stressed in Chapter 3, Judas and the Holy Book tell much more positive stories of creation than the Apocryphon of John. They do not explain creation as the result of Sophia’s transgression, but rather as the work of Providence bringing chaos into divine order. In these stories, apostate angels, not Sophia, are to blame for the origins of worldly corruption. Yet because most of our sources for the Sethians are preserved in manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries, it is very difficult to determine how early many of their ideas can be dated. Scholars traditionally view the Apocryphon of John as the locus classicus of Sethian theology due to the fact that Irenaeus knows something like it already by the year 180 CE. But if our Gospel of Judas is roughly the same as the one mentioned by   1

See, for example, John Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001).



132

Conclusion

Irenaeus, then its unique creation story already circulated in the middle of the second century as well, and was perhaps even read by some Sethians as an alternative to the Apocryphon. The Gospel of Judas therefore raises questions about the internal diversity of the Sethians’ cult movement. Scholars classify writings like the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Judas, and the Holy Book as ‘Sethian’ because they share many unique mythological characters and themes. Yet if we choose to use such labels as Sethian (or Valentinian, or any other) to typologically sort texts according to the unique features they share, we must also remember that our typologies do not represent monolithic ‘systems’ with no internal diversity. When one looks closely at the specific details of each text, it is clear that they also tell drastically different narratives and advocate different theological perspectives. This raises a larger question that historians of early Christianity are only beginning to explore, namely, what sorts of controversies there were within the various ‘schools’ of thought that we typologically construct by blurring differences among their members. Although much attention has been paid to Sethian disputes with other forms of Christianity, I find it quite likely that many of the differences found within the Sethian corpus itself can be explained on the basis that they carried on more disputes with each other than they did with non-Sethians. For example, while the Gospel of Judas, Holy Book, and Melchizedek all interpret the death of Jesus positively, according to the myth of Christus Victor, other Sethian texts (e.g., Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons) say nothing about it whatsoever. And yet others (the Trimorphic Protennoia and Apocalypse of Adam) refer to the savior’s passion, but do not unambiguously endow it with theological meaning. Was, then, the interpretation of Jesus’ death a contested issue among Sethians themselves? Another controversy among the Sethians may have been how to evaluate the twelve disciples. As I discussed in Chapter 2, Judas shares a Christian view that denigrated the Twelve and objected to their credibility as church leaders. However, at some point the rich fund of Sethian theology now entitled the Apocryphon of John was edited and attributed to one of the Twelve, John the son of Zebedee (an attribution evidently not known to Irenaeus). Thus the Apocryphon’s post-resurrection frame narrative, in which Jesus appears after his ascension to give John the true gospel, may have been a way for a Sethian author to rehabilitate at least one of the Twelve. Many more examples of difference within the Sethian corpus could be offered. But what do they tell us about the internal diversity of the Sethians? What theological controversies do they reveal among members of the holy race? And did such issues lead to social fragmentation into different ‘branches’ their movement?



Appendices

Appendix A

Text and Translation At present, most of Codex Tchacos is housed at the Bodmer Library in Geneva, while other parts – those fragments recovered in 2009 from a private collection in Ohio – are rumored to be in Egypt under the care of Egyptian antiquities authorities. I produced this Coptic transcript of the Gospel of Judas from high-quality photographs of the manuscript made available by the National Geographic Society. My purpose was to carefully examine the textual problems posed by the heavily damaged papyri so as to provide readers with my own understanding of the text along with comments on passages where the reading is most obscure and open for discussion. To that end I include a critical apparatus which provides reconstructions proposed by previous commentators, as well as my own notations on individual problems. I omit the previously suggested reconstructions which have been rendered obsolete by the fragments recovered in Ohio. In cases where the chief editor of the NGS Critical Edition, Professor Gregor Wurst, has updated his Coptic transcript since the publication of the editio princeps (2007), I cite the more recent version, which will likely reflect the text of the forthcoming second Critical Edition. I would like to thank Professor John D. Turner of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln for encouraging me to undertake this project and for spending many laborious hours with me scrutinizing the text.

Sigla vacat, vac ёҕ [ёѓѕ] [. . .] { } < > ‫ޗ ޘ‬

Uninscribed space within the textual column Sub-linear dot indicates the uncertainty of a character for which ink traces are visible. Reconstructed text Lacuna (each point represents one character space) Editorial deletion Editorial emendation Text written above the line in the manuscript

Appendix A: Text and Translation

135

Apparatus Notations BB Cherix KW

ms Nagel1 Nagel2

Plisch SR

Turner VDV Wurst1 Wurst2 Wurst3 Wurst4

Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen (Walter de Gruyter, 2007). Pierre Cherix, “Évangile de Judas” (2000) www.coptica.ch/EvJudas-tra.pdf (accessed May 24, 2011) Rodolphe Kasser and Gregor Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes: Critical Edition (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2007). manuscript Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 98 (2007): 213–276. Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138. Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10 (2006): 5–14. Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 63–98. Reconstructions proposed by John D. Turner (University of Nebraska, Lincoln). Jacques van der Vliet, “Judas and the Stars: Philological Notes On the Newly Published Gospel of Judas (GOSJUD, CODEX GNOSTICUS MAGHAGHA 3),” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 36 (2006): 137–152. Neue Fragmente I (2007): www.kthf.uni-augsburg.de/de/prof_doz/hist _theol/wurst/medien/Neue_Fragmente_I.pdf (accessed Aug. 27, 2011). Neue Fragmente II (2008): www.kthf.uni-augsburg.de/de/prof_doz/hist _theol/wurst/medien/Neue_Fragmente_II.pdf (accessed Aug. 27, 2011). Neue Fragmente III (2008): www.kthf.uni-augsburg.de/de/prof_doz/hist _theol/wurst/medien/Neue_Fragmente_III.pdf (accessed Aug. 27, 2011). H. Krosney, M. Meyer, G. Wurst, “Preliminary Report on New Fragments of Codex Tchacos,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 282–294.

136

 1    5     10     15     20     25  

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩѕ ѱѧѯѕѯ>ѵ@љѷțџƉѱźѫŶѷёѱѯѻё ѵƉѣѵѫŶ>ѷёǼ@џƉƩѵȕƉёȝљѩŶѫŶǼѯѹїёѵ >ѱѣѵ@ѥƉёѳѣҁѷ>џѵ@ѫŶțџѷȗŶ vac ѫŶ >ȕ@ѩѯѹѫѫțѯѯѹțёѡџѫŶȕѯ >ѩ@ѫѷŶѫțѯѯѹљѩѱёѷљȗѳŶ ѱƉёѵѽёѫŶѷёѳљƉȗѯѹҁѫțŶљ ѓѯѧțѣȝѩŶѱѥёțёȗљѣѳƉљƉѫțѫŶ ѩёǼѫѩŶѫŶțŶѫѫѯңѫŶȕ>ѱ@џƉѳљ љƉѱљѹȝƉёƉǼƉѫŶƉѷƉѩƉѫŶѷѳƉ>ҁѩ@љƉ ёѹҁțƩѯǼѫљѩљѫљѹƉ>ѩѯѯ@ȕƉљƉ țŶѫŶѷљțѣџѫŶѷїѣѥёѣѯѵ>ѹ@ѫƉџ țѫѥѯѯѹљљѹѩѯѯȕљƉ>ț@ѫƉѷљѹ ѱёѳёѓёѵѣѵёѹѩѯѹƉ>ѷљ@їљ љѱѩƉѫŶƉѷƉѵƉѫƉѯƉѯƉѹѵѩŶƉ>ѩё@ѡџ ѷƉџѵёƉȗёѳȝƉ>љѣ@ѫȕё>ȝљ@ѫѩŶ ѩёѹљѩŶѩ>ѹѵ@ѷџѳѣ>ѯ@ѫƉљѷțѣ ȝѫŶѱѥѯѵѩѯѵёѹҁѫљѷѫё ȕƉҁƉѱƉљƉȕƉёѓѯѧѯѹџѱљїљ >ѫ@ѵѯѱŤѩёƉȗƉѯѹƉѯѫțȗŶљѫљȗ ѩёѡџѷџѵёѧѧёѫŶțƩѳѯѷ! ȕё^ѥ`ѹ!țƩљљѳѯȗțѫŶѷљѹѩџѷљ ёѹҁёȗȕҁѱљțѫŶȡѯѹїёѣё ȕёѫљȗѩёѡџѷџѵѫѯѹțƩѯ >ѯ@ѹƉёƉȗƉțƉљљѳѯѯѹљƉѹƉțѩѯѯѵ љѹƉѵѯѯѹțŶљѹѳŶѕѹѩѫёѝљ љѷѩѫŶƉѷѫѯѹѷљѫѷљѳљȗƉ >ȟҁȕ@ѷљƉѫљȗѩёѡџѷџѵ!

13 ёȗ!ѩѯѹƉ>ѷљ@ Nagel1, SR ‫ ۅ‬19 ѩѱƉȗѯѹѯѫțȗŶ SR ‫ ۅ‬20 țƩѳѯѷ >— KW; țѳŶѯѷȗƉ SR, but no ȗLVYLVLEOH. ‫ ۅ‬21 ȕёѥțљ ms, KW, BB; ȕёѹ!țљ Nagel1, Cherix, SR ‫ ۅ‬27 ȟƉ>ҁȕ@ѷƉ Cherix, SR

Appendix A: Text and Translation

33 1

5

10

15

20

25

The secret discourse of the proclamation in which Jesus spoke with Judas Iscariot during eight days prior to the three days before he kept Passover. When he appeared upon the earth, he performed signs and great wonders for the salvation of humanity. While some were walking in the path of righteousness and others were walking in their transgression, the twelve disciples were called. And he began to speak with them about the mysteries above the world and what will happen up to the end. On a number of occasions he did not show himself to his disciples, but rather † as a child † would find him in their midst. One day he came in Judea to his disciples, and found them seated, gathered together, practicing godliness. When he [saw] his disciples

137

138

 1    5     10     15     20     25  

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩї љѹѵѯѯѹțљѹțѩƉѯѯѵ>љ@ѹѳŶљѹѽё ѳѣѵѷѣљȝѫѱёƉѳƉѷѯƉѵƉ>ёȗ@ѵҁѓƉљƉ ѩŶѩёѡџѷџ>ѵїљ@ѱљȝёѹѫƉ>ёȗȝљ@ ѱѵёƩțљѷѓљѯѹѥѵҁѓљѫŶƉѵƉёƉѷƉ>љѫ@ љѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣёџƉѫѷёѫѳѯѹѱ>љ@ ѱљѷљѵȕљ vac ёȗѯѹҁȕȗŶѱ>љ@ ȝёȗѫёѹљљѣѵҁѓљѫŶѵҁѷѫŶ ёѫ>ѯѹ@їљљѷѫљѣѳљѩŶѱёљѣёѫ țŶ>ѫѱљ@ѷƉѫѯѹҁƉȕƉёѧƉѧƉёțѫŶѱёǼ љƉ>ȗѫёȝ@ѣƉѵѩѯѹѫŶңѣѱљѷѫŶѫѯѹ ѷƉљƉ>vac@atѱљȝёѹȝљѱѵƩƉёƉƩțƉѫѷѯѥŤ >@ѱƉљƉѱƉȕƉџƉѳƉљƉѩƉŶѱƉљѫѫѯѹ ѷљƉ>vac@atѱљȝƉ>ё@ȗѫёƉѹƉѫƉңƉѣƉǼƉџƉѵƉ ȝљљƉ>ѷљѷ@ѫѵѯƉѯƉѹѫљƉѩƉѩƉѯљѣ țƉѫŶƉѯѹ>ț@ёѩџѫ>ȡ@ȝƉҁѩѩƉѯѵѫƉџƉ ѷƉѫŶƉȝ>љ@ѩƉѫƉѧё>ѯѹ@љѫѕљѫљёƉѫёƉ ѵѯѹҁѫѷŶțѫŶѫŶѳҁѩљљƉѷƉѫƉțƉџƉѷ ѷџѹѷѫŶѫŶѷљѳѯƉѹƉѵƉҁƉѷƉѩƉ>ї@љƉ љѱёǼѫŶңѣѫљȗѩёѡџѷџѵёƉ>ѹ@ ёѳȝљѣѫƉёѕёѫёѥѷљƉѣƉёѹҁƉљ>ѳŶ@ ѯѳѕџёѹҁљȝѣѯѹёљѳѯȗțѫŶ ѱљѹțџѷѣƩџƩѵїљѫŶѷљѳљȗ ѫƉёƉѹƉљѷљѹƉѩѫѷёƉѷƉѡƉџƉѷƉ>ѱљȝёȗ@ ѫёѹȝљљѷѓљѯѹёѱƉȕƉѷѯѳѷŶѳ ѫŶѱңҁѫѷѱљѷѫŶѫѯѹѷљљѷѫŶ țџѷѷџѹѷѫŶёѹҁѫƉ>љȗѵѣѯѹ@

5 ѱ[ёǼ] KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬8 љѷѫљѣѳљ syncopation for љѷљѷѫљѣѳљ ‫ ۅ‬10 љƉ[ȗѫёȝ]ѣƉѵѩѯѹ KW; љƉ[ȗȝѣѱљ]ȗƉѵѩѯѹ SR, though there are not five character spaces in the lacuna (even with iota). ‫ ۅ‬12 [țҁҁѥё]ѫƉTurner; [ѱȝѯǼѵ] Nagel1; ѫƉёƉ>ѩџ@љƉ BB; ѩƉёƉ>ѹёё@ѥƉ SR ‫ ۅ‬20 љ>ȝѣ@ Cherix; љƉ>ѳ@ SR ‫ ۅ‬26 ѫƉ>љȗ ± . . .] KW; ѫƉ>љȗȟѯѩ@ BB; ѱƉ>љѷѫŶѱѫŶё@ SR; the small ink trace before the lacuna fits either ѫ or ѱ

Appendix A: Text and Translation

34 1

5

10

15

20

25

gathered together, seated, giving thanks over the bread, [he] laughed. But the disciples said to him, “Teacher, why are you laughing at [our] thanksgiving? What have we done? It is what’s right.” He responded to them saying, “I’m not laughing at you. Nor are you doing this by your will; but rather it is by this that your god [will be] praised.” They said, “Teacher, you [. . .] are the son of our god.” Jesus said to them, “How do [you] know me? Indeed I say to you, no race of the people among you will know me.” When his disciples heard this, [they] began to get contentious and angry, and were blaspheming against him in their hearts. But when Jesus saw their foolishness, [he said] to them, “Why has confusion brought forth anger? Your god who is within you and [his stars]

139

140

 1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩљ ёƉѹёѕёƉѫƉ>ёѥ@ѷѣ>ѩ@ѫƉѫљѷѫѿѹѽџ ѱƉљѷ>ѷ@ёƉ>ȝѳ@џƉѹƉѫŶț>џ@ѷѷџѹѷѫŶѫŶѫŶ >ѳ@ҁѩљѩƉёƉ>ѳљȗѳŶ@ѱƉёƉѳƉёƉѕƉљƉѩŶѱѳҁ >ѩљ@ѫƉѷљѧѣѯѵёѹҁѫȗҁțљѳёѷȗŶ ѩŶѱљѩŶѷѯљѓѯѧѩѱёѱѳѯѵҁ ѱƉѯѫёѹҁёѹȝѯƉѯѵѷџѳѯѹȝљ ѷѫŶȝѯѯѳёѹҁѩƉѱљȕѱљѹѱƩѫƩё ѷѯѧѩёљҁțƩљѳёѷȗŶѩŶ>ѱљȗ@ѩŶ ѷƉѯљѓѯѧљѣѩџǼѯѹїёѵ>ѱѣѵ@ѥƉё ѳѣҁѷџѵёȗңѩңѯѩѩљѫƉ>љ@ҁƉ țљѳёѷƉƩȗѩŶѱљȗѩŶѷѯљѓ>ѯѧ@ѩŶ ѱљȗңѩңѯѩїљљңҁȕѷŶƉ>љț@ѯƩѹѫ љțƩѳёȗѫŶѫљȗѓёƉѧёƉѧƉѧƉёƉѫŶѷёȗ ѥѷљțƩѳёȗљѱёțƩѯѹѱљȝ>ё@ȗƉѫёȗ ѫŶңѣǼѯѹїёѵȝљƉȡѵѯ>ѯ@ѹѫљȝљ ѫŶѷѥѫѣѩёѹҁѫŶѷёѥ>љ@ѣƉљѓѯѧ țƩѫŶѫёȕѩŶѩёѫŶѷёѥљѣљѓѯѧțƩѫŶ ѱёѣҁѫѫŶѷѓƩёƩѳƩѓƩџƩѧƩҁѱёѡё ѫџѷѯѵёѹҁѱљѫѷёȗѷёѯѹѯѥ ѱёǼљѷљѫŶȡѩŶѱȕёёѫѫŶѷёѯѹѯ ѩŶѱљȗѳёѫyvacǼƩџƩѵїљљȗѵѯѯѹѫљ ȝљȗѩљѯѹљљѱѥљѵљљѱљљѷ ȝѯѵљѱљȝёȗѫёȗȝљѱҁѳȝŶ љѓѯѧѩŶѩѯѯѹѷёȝҁљѳѯѥѫŶ ѩŶѩѹѵѷџѳѣѯѫѫŶѷѩŶѫѷљѳѯ ѯѹѽƉțƉѣƉѫƉёƉȝљљѥљѓҁѥљѩёѹ ёѧѧёȝљƉљƉѥљёȕёțƩѯѩѫŶțѯѹѯ

1 țƉѫƉѫљѷѫ Cherix, though the spacing of the lacuna suggests the width of ѩ. ‫ ۅ‬13 ёƉѧƉѧƉёҕ ѫŶѷёȗ Wurst1 (frg. C27 Ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬14 ѱљȝ>ё@ȗҕ Wurst1 (frg. C27 Ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬26 ѯѹѫƉ ȟƉѯƉѩƉ SR (following preliminary transcript of KW), but ѯѹѫȟѯѩ does not introduce clauses with ȝљ + III Future. The faded character before ȝ has a diagonal back-stroke which resembles ё more than ѩ (compare ѩ and ё at the end of the line: ѩ has a straight vertical right-hand side, whereas ё has a diagonal back-stroke).

Appendix A: Text and Translation

35 1

5

10

15

20

25

have become contentious with your souls. Let the [stable] one among you people bring forth the perfect human and stand before my face.” And they all said, “We are strong.” But their spirit could not dare to stand in [his] presence, except for Judas [Is]cariot. He could stand before him, but not look into his eyes; instead he turned his face away. Judas said to him, “I know who you are and whence you have come. You have come from the immortal realm of Barbelo, and he who sent you, I am not worthy to proclaim his name.” Now since Jesus knew that he (Judas) was considering something lofty, he said to him, “Separate from them and I will tell you the mysteries of the kingdom; not so you may go there, but so that you will mourn deeply.

141

142

 1    5 

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩѵ ȝљѯѹѫŶѥёѣѯѹƉ>ё@ѕёѳѫёȕҁѱљ љѱљѥѩёțѣѫёȝљљƉ>ѳљѱ@ѩѫŶѷ ѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѵƉ>ѷѯѣѽѣ@ѯƉѫƉљƉѹљ ȝҁѥљѓѯѧțѫŶѱљѹѫѯѹѷљ ёѹҁѱљȝёȗѫёȗѫŶңѣǼѯƩѹƩїƩёƩѵ ȝљљѥёȝљѫёǼƉљѳѯǼѫёȕѫŶ țѯѯѹёѹҁѫȗȕёљѫŶңѣѱѫѯ>ң@ ѫŶțƉ>ѯѯ@ѹѩŶѱѯѹѯǼѫѫŶѷѕљѫљƉ ё>@ѫƉёƉǼƉїљѫѷљѳљȗŶ ȝѯ>ѯ@ѹёȗѧѯțёѷџȗѫŶңѣǼџƩѵ ȕҁƉ>ѳ@ѱźїљѫѷљѳљȗȕҁѱљ ёȗѯƉѹƉ>ҁ@ѫƉțƉљƉѓƉѯƉѧѫŶѫљȗѩёѡџ ѷџѵƉёѹҁƉѱљȝёѹѫёȗȝљѱѵё>ț@ ѫѷёѥƉѓƉҁѥљƉѷƉҁƉѫƉљѥƉѳѯѹљ ёѥѧѯț>ё@ѳѯѫѱљȝёȗѫёѹѫŶң>ѣ@ ǼџƩѵȝљѫѷёљѣѓҁѥȕёѥёѣѫѯңƉ ѫŶѕљѫљёљѵѯѹёёѓѱљȝёѹ ѫёȗѫңѣѫљȗѩёѡџѷџѵȝљ ѱȝѯǼѵёȕѷљѷѫѯңѫŶѕљѫљё љѷȝѯѵљљѳѯѫёѹҁљѷѯѹёёѓ љѫѵțƩѫѫљǼёѣҁѫёѫѷљѫѯѹ ёѹҁѫŶѷљѳљȗѵҁѷѩљѫёǼѫŶңѣ ǼџƩѵёȗѵҁѓљѱљȝёȗѫёѹȝљ ёțѳҁѷѫŶѷƉљѷѫŶƉŶѩљѯѹљțѩŶѱљ ѷѫŶțџѷљѷѓƉљƉѷƉѕƉљѫљёљѷƉ ȝѯѯѳvacёѹҁљѷѯѹёёƉѓ!!!!

3 There are 4–5 characters in the lacuna; ѫࡄѵҕ[ѷѯѣѽѣ]ѯҕѫҕ VDV; ѫŶѵ>ѓѯѹǼ@ KW, BB; ѫŶѵƉ>ѣѯѹ@ SR, Turner, though this leaves about one character space empty; the ink trace following the lacuna also fits љ. ‫ ۅ‬6 љѥёȝљ љѥѫёȝљѫ of Future conjugation often elides in sub-Achmimic dialects); љѥѫ!ёȝљ SR ‫ ۅ‬9 ё>@ KW; the final trace could be a dicolor or a letter; љѷȝѯѯѳ Plisch; >љѷѩŶѩёѹ@ Nagel1; >љѷѩŶ@ѩƉёƉѹҕ BB; >љѷ@ѩŶƉѩƉёƉѹƉ SR. >ѫŶѫѳ@ҁƉѩƉљƉ Turner ‫ ۅ‬12 ёȗѯƉѹƉ>ҁ@ѫƉțҕ Wurst1 (frg. C27 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬13 ёѹҁҕ Wurst1 (frg. C27 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬14 ѫѷёѥƉѓƉҁѥƉ Wurst1 (frg. C27 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬18 ȝљ KW ‫ ۅ‬21 ѱ!љǼёѣҁѫ SR

Appendix A: Text and Translation

36 1

5

10

15

20

25

For indeed there is another who will take your place, so that the twelve [elements] shall be complete in their god.” And Judas said to him, “What day will you tell me about this? And when will the great day of light dawn for [that] race?” Yet when he said this, Jesus left him. When morning came, he appeared to his disciples, and they said to him, “Teacher, where did you go and what did you do after you left us?” And Jesus replied to them, “I went to another great and holy race.” His disciples said to him, “Lord, what is the great race that is more exalted than us, and holy, and not in these realms?” Now when Jesus heard this he laughed and said to them, “Why are you pondering in your heart about the strong and holy race?

143

144

1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩѝ  >ț@ёƉѩƉџѫƉ>ȡ@ȝƉ>ҁѩ@ѩѯѵѫџѷѫŶȝљ >ȝ@ѱѯѫƉѣƉѩƉ>ѫŶѷљѱ@љљƉѣёѣҁѫѫŶѵљ >ѫ@ёƉѫƉёƉѹƉёƉ>ѫљѷѕљѫљёљѷѩŶ@ѩƉёѹ >ѯ@ѹƉїљѩѫѧёѯѹљѫƉƉѵѷѳёѷѣёѫёѕ ѕљѧѯѵѫŶѫŶѵѣѯѹѫёƉѳŶљѳѯљȝѫŶѷѕљ ѫљёљѷѩŶѩёѹѯѹїљѩѫŶѧёѯѹљ ѫȝѱѯѫѳҁѩљ>ѫ@ѡѫџѷѯƉѵѫёȕ љѣѫѩŶѩёѵvacȝљ>ѷ@ѕƉљѫљ>ёљѷѩŶ@ѩёѹ ѫѯѹљѓѯѧёƉѫ>@>@љѫŶ ѷёȗȕҁѱљ>@ѵ>@ѷƉѕƉљƉ ѫƉљёѫƉѫƉѳҁѩ>љ@ѫƉѷ>@ёƉѧѧё ѯƉѹƉљѓѯѧțѫŶѷ>ѕљ@ѫƉљёѫƉ>ѫѣѫ@vacѯȟѫŶ ѳƉҁƉѩљѷљљ>@vacљѫљѭѹR  ѵƉѣƉёƉѫƉŶңѯѩљ>@vacѯѹїљѧё ѯƉѹƉљƉѫїѹѫёѩƉ>ѣѵѫŶѫёѣ@ҁѫѫёǼ љѷљѷѫѯѫŶѳѳѯțѳ>ёљѣ@ѫƉțџѷѯѹ ѫŶѷљѳѯѹѵҁѷѩŶљѫёǼѫŶңѣѫљȗ ѩёѡџѷџѵёѹȕѷѯѳѷѳțƩѩѱљѹ ѱѫƩёѯѹёѯѹёѩŶѱѯѹңѫŶљѹѫё ȝѯѯѵȝљѯѹёȗљѣȕёѳѯѯѹѫŶ ѥёѣțѯѯѹѫŶңѣѣџƩѵѱљȝёѹѫёȗȝљ ѱѵёțёѫѫёѹљѳѯѥźțѫŶѯѹѳёѵѯѹ ёѫѫёѹѕёѳљțѫŶѫѯңѫŶѳё>ѵѯѹ@ >țѫŶѷ@ѯѹȕџѫŶѷёѯѹљѣѫ>љѣџƩѵїљ@ >ѱљȝёȗȝ@љљѷѓљѯѹѫŶѷё>@ >@ёѷѫŶțёѱźѷџѹѷƉ>ѫŶ@

 9 >ѷ@љƉ ѫŶ KW; >țѩŶ ѱ@љƉǼƉ>ѥѯѵѩѯ@ѵƉ ѫŶ BB, but the traces before ѫŶ do not fit ѵ; >țѫŶ ѱљ@ѣёƉ>ѣҁѫ ѱёǼ@ љƉѫ 65 7XUQHU WKRXJK D VXSUDOLQHDU VWURNH LV YLVLEOH RYHU ѫ ‫ ۅ‬10 ёƉ>ȗȝѯѯ@ѵѯƉ>ѫȝљѷѕљ@ SR. The ink trace before the first lacuna resembles the lower left of ё; the trace between ѵ and the second lacuna has a round left-hand curve like љ, ѯ or ѵ ‫ ۅ‬11 ѫƉѫƉѳҁѩ>љљѷ@ѫƉțƉџѷ>ѷџѹѷѫŶ@ KW, BB; ѫƉț Ɖџѷ is difficult because the traces do not fit țџ. The illegible character before ѷ has a vertical right-hand side like џ, ѣ, ѩ, ѫ, or less likely ѱ. Perhaps ѫџƉѷѫŶƉ (cf. line 1) ‫ ۅ‬12 ѫƉŶ>ѫѣѫ@ѯȟ Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬13 љѵƉ>ѡѫџѷѯѵ ёѹȕҁѱљ@ BB, but the ink trace before the lacuna does not fit ѵ (perhaps ȝ). ‫ ۅ‬14 The ink trace before the lacuna resembles the left-hand stroke of ѷ, but could be another character such as ѱ ‫ ۅ‬24 >ѫŶѷљљѣ@ѯѹȕџ KW; there is space for only 3 characters. ‫ ۅ‬25 ѫŶѷё>ѷљѷѫŶ@ KW; ѫŶѷё>ѯѹѫ@ (var. of ѫѷѯѯѹѫ) SR, Nagel2 ‫ ۅ‬26 ёѷѫŶ, syncopation for ёѷљѷѫŶ (cf. 34.8, 54.6); >ѳŶțѯѷљ ѫŶѷ@ёѷѫŶ BB; >ёѷѫŶȕѧёț@ SR; >ёѷѫŶѓҁѥ@ or >ёѷѫŶȕѣѱљ@ Nagel2; >ȟҁѫѷ@ Cherix

Appendix A: Text and Translation

37 1

5

10

15

20

25

Indeed I say to you, no one born of this realm will see [that race]; nor will any angelic army of the stars rule over that race; nor will any mortal human offspring be able to join it. For [that race] is not from [. . .] which came to be [. . .] the race of humans [. . .]. But it is from the race of [the great] people [. . .], powerful authorities [. . .], nor any powers [of the realms] in which you are kings.” When his disciples heard this, each one of them was confused in their spirit, and they could not find anything to say. Jesus came to them another day. They said to him, “Teacher, we saw you in a dream. For we had great [dreams last] night.” [But Jesus said], “Why [. . .] you concealed yourselves?”

145

146

 1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩџ ѫŶѷѯѯѹїƉљƉѱƉ>љȝёѹȝљё@ѫƉѫƉёƉ>ѹ@ љѹѫѯңƉѫƉџƉ>Ǽ@љƉ>ѳљѯѹѫ@ѯƉңƉѫѡѹ>ѵѣ@ ёѵѷџƉѳƉ>ѣѯѫѫŶțџѷȗŶёѹ@ҁƉѩƉѫƉѷƉ>ѵ@ ѫѯѯѹѵѫѳҁѩљљѫȝҁѩŶѩ>ѯѵ@ ȝљѫŶѯѹџџѓѫљёѹҁѯѹѳёѫ ѯѹѫѯѹѩџџȕљїљѱѳѯѵѥёѳ ѷљѳƉљƉѣ^љѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣ`љѱљ ѡѹƉ>ѵѣё@ѵѷџƉ>ѳѣ@ѯƉѫ>љ@ѷѩŶѩёѹ!!!! ȕƉ>ёѫѷѯѹљѣљѓ@ѯƉѧѫŶңѣѫŶѯѹџџѓ >ѫŶѵљȝѣљțѯѹѫѫŶ@ѫƉȕѩŶȕљёѫѯѫ їљ>ѫљ@ѫѱѳѯ>ѵѥё@ѳƉѷљѳѣѱљ!!! ѱљȝƉ>ёȗ@ѫŶңѣǼƩ>џƩѵ@ȝљțѫŶёȕѩŶѩѣ ѫљѫљƉ>@ѫŶѷѯѯѹїљ ѱљȝёѹƉ>ȝљțѯљѣ@ѫƉљѩљѫљѹ  ѫџѵѷƉ>љѹљѫŶțљѓ@їѯѩёѵѵѫŶѷљ țƩѫѥѯ>ѯѹљ@їƉљљѹѳŶѡѹѵѣёѵљѫŶ ѫљѹȕџѳљѩŶѩѣѫѩŶѩѯѯѹțѫŶ ѥѯѯѹљѫŶѫљѹțƩѣѯѩљљѹѵѩѯѹ ёѹҁљѹѡƩѓѓѣџѹѫŶѫŶљѹљѳџѹ!! țƩѫѥѯѯѹљљѹѫŶѥѯѷѥљѩŶѫѫŶțѯ ѯѹѷțѫŶѥѯѯѹљљѹѳŶțҁѓљѻҁ ѷѓŶțѫŶѥљѥѯѯѹљљѹљѣѳљѫѯѹ ѩџџȕљѫѫѯѓљțѣёѫѯѩѣё!! >ёѹ@ҁƉѫŶѳҁѩљљѷҁțљѳƉ>ёѷѯѹ@ >љȝ@ѫŶѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯ>ѫљѹѳŶ@ >љ@ѱƉѣѥёѧљѣљѱљѥƉѳƉ>ёѫ!!!!!@

  3 ѩƉѫƉѩƉѫƉѷƉ>ѵ@ SR. The ink traces following the lacuna could be read as the top of ҁ or the upper right corner of ѩ followed by the top of ѫ. If ҁ, then a trace of the upper right-hand point of a preceding ѹ may also be visile. ‫ ۅ‬5 ѯѹѳёѫ KW; ѯѹѳёѫ ёѹѳŶ љѱѣѥёѧљѣљѳѯȗ! SR ‫ ۅ‬9 ȕƉ>ёѫѷѯѹљѣљѓ@ѯƉѧ Nagel1, SR; ȕƉ>ёѫѷѯѹȝҁѥљѓ@ѯƉѧ KW, VDV, BB ‫ ۅ‬10 >ѫŶѵљȝѣљțѯѹѫѫŶ@ѫƉȕѩȕљ KW (cf. 39.19); >љѹѫŶѷѓŶѫѯѯѹљѫŶ@ѫƉȕѩŶȕљ SR ‫ ۅ‬13 Probably >ѫŶѯѹџџѓ@, BB; >ѫѣѳҁѩљ@Nagel1 ‫ ۅ‬22 ѷѓŶvacțѫŶ KW, BB, though traces of a dicolon are visible (cf. line 21).

Appendix A: Text and Translation

38 1

5

10

15

20

25

They [said, “We saw] a great house [with a great] altar in it, and twelve people, whom we say are priests, and a name. There was a crowd devoted to that altar [until] the priests [came out and received] the offerings. And we ourselves continued in devotion.” [Jesus said], “Of what sort are [. . . ]?” And they said, “Some fast for two weeks; others sacrifice their very own children, and others their wives, all the while praising and behaving with humility toward one another. Some sleep with men, others murder, while others commit many sins and crimes. And the people standing over the altar invoke your [name].

147

148

 1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѧƩѡ ёƉѹƉҁљƉѹƉ>ț@ѫŶѫŶ>љ@țƉѓџѯѹљѷџѳѯѹ ѩŶѱљѹȕҁƉҁƉѷƉ>љ@ȕƉ>ё@ȗƉѩѯѹțŶѫңѣ ѱƉљѡѹѵvac>ѣёѷџѳѣѯѫљѷѩŶ@ѩƉёƉѹ ёѹҁѫƉёǼѫŶѷљѳѯѹȝƉ>ѯ@ѯѹƉёƉ>ѹ@ѥё ѳҁѯѹљѹȕѷѳŶѷҁѳѱљȝёȗ ѫёѹѫŶңѣǼƩџƩѵȝљљѷѓљѯѹёѷљ ѷѫŶȕѷѯѳѷѳŶțƩƉёѩџѫȡȝҁ ѩŶѩѯѵѫџѷѫŶȝ>љ@ѫŶѯѹџƉ>џѓ@ѷџ ѳѯѹљѷҁțƩљѳё>ѷ@ѯѹљȝ>ѫŶѱљ@ѡѹ ѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯѫљѷѩŶѩёѹљ>ѹѳŶ@љѱѣ ѥёѧљѣѩŶѱёѳёѫƉёѹҁѯ>ѫ@ȡƉȝҁ ѩŶѩѯѵѫџѷѫŶȝљѫƉѷёѹѵțƉёǼ ѩŶѱёѳёѫљѱљљƉѣƉџƉǼѫŶƉѫƉѕљѫљё ѫŶѫŶѵѣѯѹљѓѯѧțƩ>ѣ@ѷѫŶѫŶƉѕљѫљё ѫŶѫŶѳҁѩƉљvacёƉ>ѹ@ҁ>ёѹ@ѷҁңљ țѫŶѱёѳёѫѫŶțƩѫȕƉ>џ@ѫѫƉёѷѥёѳ ѱѯѵёѹҁțѫѯѹȕѣѱљvac (4 spaces) ѱљȝёȗѫёѹѫŶңѣǼƩџƩѵȝљѫŶѷҁѷѫŶ ^ѫŶ`ѫљѷȝѣљțѯѹѫѫŶѫŶȕѩŶȕљ љѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯѫѫŶѷёѷљ ѷѫŶѫёѹљѳѯȗvacѱљѷѩŶѩёѹ ѱљѱƩѫƩȡљѷљѷѫŶȕѩȕљѫёȗ ёѹҁѱѩѫƩѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѳҁѩљ ѫŶѷёѷљѷѫŶёѹљѳѯѯѹѫŶѷҁѷѫ ѱљёѹҁѫŶѷƩѓѫѯѯѹљљѷѯѹ љѣѫљѩŶѩѯѯѹљțѯѹѫѫŶѡѹѵѣё ѫŶѷёѷљѷѫŶѫёѹљѳѯѯѹѫљљ ѷљѱѩџџȕљѱљљѷљѷѫŶѱѧёѫё

  2–3 >љ@ȕƉ>ё@ȗƉ KW, BB, Cherix; >љ@ȕ>ё@ѹѩѯѹțѫȟѣ_ѫљѡѹѵ>ѣёѩŶѱѩџџȕљљѷѩŶ@ѩёѹ Nagel1,2. The ink trace before ѩѯѹț fits ȗ better than ѹ (note the vertical stroke on the right-hand side, out of which protrudes a curved horizontal stroke to the left; compare the shape of ȗ in lines 18 and 22). The ink trace of the first character in line 3 may fit either ѫ or ѱ (with a somewhat faded horizontal stroke); there is a slight horizontal protrusion to the right, fitting the upper right-hand corner of ѱ (cf. lines 2, 5 and 11), whereas the scribe’s ѫ often has a slight protrusion to the left (compare the shape of ѫ in lines 6 and 7). ‫ ۅ‬13 ѱљљѣ>џ@Ǽ Nagel1; ѱљљƉѣƉџƉǼ Cherix, SR, Turner; ѱљѳѱџǼ BB ‫ ۅ‬24 ѫŶѷёѷљѷѫŶёѹ, syncopation for ѫѷёѷљѷѫŶѫёѹ ‫ ۅ‬19 ^ѫŶ`ѫљѷȝѣ Turner

Appendix A: Text and Translation

39 1

5

10

15

20

25

And as they are engaged in all their sacrificial acts, that [altar] is filled up.” After they said this they became silent since they were confused. Jesus said to them, “Why are you confused? Truly I say to you, all the priests standing over that altar are invoking my name. And also I tell you, my name was written on this [house] of the races of the stars by the human races, and [they] shamefully planted fruitless trees in my name.” And Jesus said to them, “It is you who receive the offerings for the altar that you saw. That (altar) is the god you serve. The twelve people whom you saw, they’re you. And the animals brought forth are the sacrifices you saw – these are the crowd you lead astray.

149

150

The Gospel of Judas !!!!

ѩ  1

5

10

15

20

25  

!!!!

ѩŶѩѯȗљȝѫŶѱ>љ@ѡѹ>ѵѣ@ёƉѵƉѷџѳƉѣƉ ѯѫƉљѷѩŶƉ>ѩё@ѹƉ>ȗѫ@ёƉ>ҁ@țƉљѳёѷƩȗ ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣѱљѷѫŶїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵёѹҁƉ ѡƉ>љ@ѷƉљƉѷёƉљƉѣљѷȗŶѫёѽѳёѵѡёѣ ѩŶѱёѳёѫёѹҁѵљѫёѳѱѳѯѵ ѥёƉѳƉѷљѳљѣљѳѯȗѫŶңѣѫ!ѕљѫљё! ѫŶƉ>ѫ@љƉѹѵљѓџѵѩƩѫƩѫѵёѱёǼ! ѥёѣѳҁѩƉ>љ@ѫёѱёѳѣѵѷёѫŶ ѫƉ>ѳљȗѱ@ѯƉѳƉѫƉ>љ@ѹƉ>љ@ёѹҁѥёѣѯѹё ȗ>ѫё@ѱёѳțƉѣѵѷёѫŶѫѳљȗțёѷѓ ȕ>џѳ@љƉѥёѣѯѹƉёїљѫŶѫѳљȗƉѫŶѥѯ ѥѷљѩѫŶțѯѯ>ѹ@ѷƉѩѫŶѫљѷѫџ ѵѷљѹљƉё>ѹ@ҁѱƉѥƉљѵљѱљѫё ѥёѡёѳ>ѵѣ@ёț>ѣё@ѫѯѩѣёțѣѱѧё ѫџё>ѹ@ҁѫƉ>љ@ѷƉȝƉҁѩŶѩѯѵȝљ ёѫѯѫțƉѫƉțƩѣѵѯѵѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ!! ёѹҁѫѷѯѯѹѫљѫŶѵѣѯѹљѷȝҁѥƉ љѓѯѧѫŶțҁѓѫѣѩёѹȝѯѯѵѕёѳ ѫŶѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶѫŶѳҁѩљȝљљѣѵ țџџѷљёѱѫѯѹѷљȕљѱѷљ ѷѫѡѹѵѣёѫŶѷѯѯѷѯѹѫѯѹџ џѓљѷљѱёљѣѱљѱїѣёѥѯѫѯѵ ѫŶѷљƉѱѧёѫџѱȝѯљѣѵїљљ ѷѯѹљțѵёțѫљѱёǼљѷѯѫƩȝƩѵ љȝѫѱѷџѳƩȗțѳёǼțƩѫѻёљѫŶ țѯѯѹѵљѫёȝѱѣѯѯѹ!!!! !!!φ

 3 There is space for about 10 or 11 characters in the lacuna; ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣѱs@ѱƉѯѵ KW; ѫŶң>ѣ ѱёѳѽҁѫ ѩŶѱѣѥѯѵ@ѩѯѵ Nagel1 (retracted in Nagel2); ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣ ѱѫѯң ѫŶљѱѣѵѥѯ@ѱƉѯѵ BB; ѫŶƉȟƉ>ѣѱȝѯљѣѵѩŶѱѥѯѵ@ѩƉѯѵ SR; ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣѱљѹїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ Turner. The ink trace before ѯ resembles the upper right-hand side of ѫ more than ѩ (note the ink blot or hook protruding to the left at the top of the right-hand vertical stroke). Turner’s shorter reconstruction would be possible if there were a vacat in the lacuna (cf. 39.3). ‫ ۅ‬5 ѳёѫvac ёѹҁ KW ‫ ۅ‬6 ѫŶ!ѕљѫљё KW ‫ ۅ‬9 ѫƉ>ϕ ѱ@ѯƉ>ѳ@ѫƉљƉ>ѹљ @ .: (cf. 54.25); ѫƉ>љѷѳŶѱ@ѯƉ>ѳ@ѫƉљƉ>ѹљ@ BB; ѫƉ>ѳљȗѱ@ѯƉ>ѳ@ѫƉљƉ>ѹљ@ SR; traces of ѯ and the upper righthand stroke of ѹ are particularly legible. For ѳљȗ cf. lines 9–10. ‫ ۅ‬26 ȗ!ѫёȝѱѣѯѯѹ Nagel1

Appendix A: Text and Translation

40

1

5

10

15

20

25

Over that altar [your minister] shall stand, and thus he shall use my name, and the pious races shall be devoted to it. After him, another person shall present the [fornicators]; and another shall present those who murder children; and yet another, those who sleep with men (and) with abstainers – and the rest of the impurities and crimes and errors. And those who say, ‘We are equal to angels,’ indeed they are the stars which bring all things to completion. For they said to the human races, ‘Behold, god received your sacrifice through a priest,’ that is, the minister of error. But it is the Lord – he who is Lord over the All – who commands that on the last day they will be put to shame.

151

152

 1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩё ѱƉљȝёƉȗƉ>ѫёѹѫ@ңѣǼƩџƩѵȝљțƩҁљѳҁ ѷѫŶѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣё@ѫƉțƉѫŶƉ>ѷ@љƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹ љƉѫŶѷёѷƉ>љѷѫŶѷёѧѯѯѹљțѳ@ёǼ țѣŶȝѫŶѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџƉ>ѳѣ@ѯƉѫƉ>љ@ѹțѣŶ ȝѫŶѫљѷѫŶѵѣѯѹѩѫŶƉѫљѷƉ>ѫŶё@ѕѕљ ѧѯѵљёѹȕѳѱȝҁѥљѓѯѧ>ѩŶ@ѩƉёѹ ѩёѳѯѹȕҁѱљңƉљƉљѹ>@ѷ ѫёțѳџѷѫŶёƉѹƉҁƉѫŶƉѵљȕƉ>ҁѱљ@љѹ ѯѹѯѫțљѓѯѧƉ>ѱљȝёѹѫёȗ@ѫŶ ȟѣѫљȗѩёѡџ>ѷџѵȝљѷ@ѯƉѹƉ ѓѯѫ>љ@ѓѯѧțѫƉѫƉљƉѫƉѫƉ>ѯѓ@љƉѫŶƉ! ѷёѫёёѹțƩѫѷљѱѧё>ѫџ@ѫƩѫёѕ ѕљѧѯѵѱљȝёȗѫёѹ>ѫŶ@ȟƉѣƉǼџƩѵ ȝƉљƉѩƩѫȕȟѯƉѩƉ>@љѳҁѯѹ ѷƉѳƉљ>ѯ@ѹїљѩƩѫ ȕƉ>ȟѯѩѫŶ@ѷљѯѹѥѳџѫџҁȕƩѩ ѩŶѱƉ>љѥѳ@ҁƉѩƉѫŶѷѯѣѥѯѹѩљѫџ ѷџ>ѳѵŶѯѹї@љѯѹѱџƉѕџțƩѫ ѯѹ>ѩ@ѫƉŶȕȟѯѩѩŶѩ!ѯѵ^љ` љѷ>ѵѯ@ѫŶƉѫѕљѫљёѷџѳѯѹљѣ ѩ>џ@ѷѣљѷѫѯȟљѷѷџȕёѹ >ҁѩ@ѫѯѹțџѓѵŶvacѫѯѹҁѷѫё >ѳŶѯ@ѹƉѯƉǼѫљѫёѣҁѫѷџѳѯѹљѣ >ѩџ@ѷѣљѷѩљț!ѵƩѫѷљѫŶѕљѫљё >ѯ@ѹƉїљѩƩѫȕȟѯѩѫѯѹёѳѷѯѥѯ >ѱ@ѯƉѵљѳŶѷѳљѻљѫŶѷљѥѷѣѵѣѵ

2 ѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣёѵљ@ѫƉțƉѫŶƉ>ѷ@љƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹ :XUVWѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣёѵљ ѫŶѫ@љƉ>љѣѷ@љƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹҕ BB, but this does not fit the ink traces and there are only 9–10 spaces between ѡ and љ ѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣё@ѵƉљƉѫŶƉ>ѫŶ@ѷƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹ SR, but the character before the third lacuna is clearly љ‫ۅ‬ 3 ѫŶѷёѷƉљƉ>ѷѫŶѷёѧѯѯѹ љțѳ@ёǼ Turner, Wurst4; the trace after ё may also be ѹ; a following trace is uncertain and is likely of the same letter (ѷ or ѹ ѫŶѷёѷƉљƉ>ѷѫŶȕҁҁѷ ѩŶѩѯѹțѳ@ёǼ BB; ѫŶѷёѷƉљƉ>ѷѫŶљѣѫљѩŶѩѯѯѹț@ѳƉёǼ SR ‫ ۅ‬4 >љ@ȗ!țѣŶ BB ‫ ۅ‬7 љѹȕѯƉ>ѹљ@ѣѷ 7XUQHU:XUVW љѹȕѯ>ѹ@ǼѷBB, but no diaeresis is visible; the trace before ѷ may be iota or the right side of another letter. ‫ ۅ‬5 ѫљѹƉ>ё@ѕѕљSR, but there are two spaces in the lacuna and the traces fit ѷ perpendicular better than ѹ diagonals . ‫ ۅ‬7 ȕҁѱљ ѫƉљѹȕƉҁƉҁƉѷ SR, but there are 2 spaces between ȕҁѱљ and љѹ; an ink trace above the line fits the upper stroke of ȟ, but may be a blemish on the papyrus (cf. line 8). ‫ ۅ‬8 ѫŶƉѵљȕ>љѫ@љѹ BB; ѫŶƉѵљȕ>љљѫ@љѹ SR; ѫŶƉѵљȕ>@љѹ Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬9 cf. 36.17–19; >ѫџѷѫŶ ѱљȝёѹ@ Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬10 >ѷџѵȝљѱȝƩѵѷ@ѯƉѹ Wurst4, though there are only 8 spaces in the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬15 ѷѳљѡёțѧѯȟ ? ‫ ۅ‬16 ȕ>ȟѯѩљѷѳ@љҕ Wurst4, but ѷ is clearly visible before љ ‫ ۅ‬17 ѩࡄѱ[љѥѳҁѩ] Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬19–20 ѯѹ>ѱѯѧѣѵѩ@ѫȕȟѯѩѩŶѩ!ѯѵљ_^љ`ѷ>ѵѣѯ@ Wurst4; ѷѵѯ cf. 43.6 ‫ ۅ‬24 ѷѩљț!ѵƩѫѷљ Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬26 ѥѷџѵѣѵ Wurst4

Appendix A: Text and Translation

41 1

5

10

15

20

25

And Jesus said [to them], “Stop the [sacrifices of animals] which [you offered] upon the altar. They are on your stars and angels, and have already been completed there. Therefore, let them become [. . .] with you, and let them [become] manifest.” His disciples [said to him, “Cleanse] us from our [sins] that we committed in the error of the angels.” Jesus said to them, “It’s impossible […] to […]. Nor [can] a fountain extinguish the [fire] of the whole world. [Nor] can a spring in a [… water] all the races, except for the great, stable (race). No single lamp will shine on all the realms, except on the † second race. † Nor can a baker feed the whole creation

153

154

 1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩѓ ѷƉџƉѳƉѵŶƉљѡёѳѯ>ѵѫŶѷѱљ@ёѹҁ ѫ>ёљѣѫŶѷљѳѯѹѵҁѷ@ѩŶљѳѯѯѹ ѫŶ>ȟѣѫљȗѩёѡџѷџѵѱљ@ȝƉёƉѹƉѫƉёƉ>ȗ@ ȝ>љѱ@ѵƉёƉțƉѓƉѯџѡѣљѳѯѫёѹҁ ѫŶ>@ѯѹѱљȝёȗѫёѹ! ѫŶƉ>ңѣ@ǼƩџƩѵȝљёѧҁѷѫŶѷљѷѫȕҁ ȝƉ>љ@ѫƉѩŶƉѩёѣѯѹѫѷљѱѯѹŪёũѱѯѹ ё>ѩŶѩ@ҁƉѷѫŶ>ѱ@љȗѵѣѯѹѩŶѩёѹ ёƉ>@>@ѫѫѵѣѯѹѫё ȝƉ>@ѱљѷљѱҁȗѱљ ё>@ѫѷƉёƉѹѷѫŶѯѯƉѹѷёѫ ȕёѷ>ѕљ@ѫљёѩŶѻѡёѳѷџёѧѧё ȕƉёѷƉѕƉ>љ@ѫƉљёљѷȝѯѯѳёѹҁ ѫŶёѻѡƉ>ё@ѳƉѷѯѫȝљѷѕљѫљё ѕёѳљѷѩƉѩёѹѩѱљѧёѯѹљ ѩѱѯѧƉ>љ@ѩѣѯѵљѳƩѳѳ>ѯљȝҁѵ@ ѯƉѹїљѯѹёțƩѫѫŶѵƉѣѯѹțёѩџ ȡȝҁѩŶѩѯѵѫ>џѷ@ѫƉȝљȗƉѫё țљțѫѯѹȟљѱџѫƉŶ>ȟѣ@ѱƉљѵѷƉѹѧ ѧѯѵѫŶѥѳҁѩёѹҁѫѷѕљѫљё љѷƩѩѩёѹѫёѥѣѩёѫțѣѷ>ѫ@ѫƉ ѵѣѯѹёѹҁѫёǼѫŶѷљѳљ>ȗȝѯ@ ѯѹѫŶȟѣǼџѵёȗѓҁѥёȗ>ȝѣǼѯѹ@ їёѵƉѫѩŶѩёƉȗѱƉѣѵѥёѳѣƉҁƉѷƉ>џѵ@ ѱљƉȝёȗѫƉёƉȗȝƉљƉѱѩѯѯѹљ>ѷ@ ѩŶѱѷѯѯѹљѷȝѯѵљѱƉљ>љѓѯѧ@

 1 [ѵ ѫࡄѷѱљ] KW ‫ ۅ‬2 ѫ>ёǼs@ KW; ѫ>ȗѯёѫѫѳљȗѫѯѹț@ѩљѳѯѯѹ BB; ѫ>ёǼ ѫŶѷљѳѯѹѵҁѷ@ѩŶ SR, Turner ‫ ۅ‬3 ѫŶƉ>sѱљ@ȝƉёƉѹƉ ѫƉёƉ>ȗ@ KW; ѫŶƉ>ѷѯѯѹїљ ёѹȕѷѯѳѷ@ѳŶƉBB; ѫŶƉ>ȟѣѩŶѩёѡџѷџѵѱљ@ȝƉёƉѹƉ ѫƉёƉ>ȗ@ SR; there are 13–14 spaces in the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬4 ȝ>љѱ@ѵƉёƉțƉѓƉѯџƉѡѣ SR; ȝ>љѱ@ȝƩƉѵƉѓѯџѡѣ Wurst4, but the character after the lacuna resembles ѵ more than ȝ, and ѱȝƩѵ would be a hapax in Judas. ‫ ۅ‬5 ѫŶ>ѥѷ@ѯѹȝƉѯƉѫƉ Wurst4; ѫŶ>ѥȡ@ѯѹѯƉǼƉѥƉ BB; ѫ>ѱѳ@ѯѹҁƉѷƉѓƉ (for ѩѱѳѯѹѷҁѓ) SR ‫ ۅ‬9 ё>ѹҁ@ ѯƉѹƉ >    @ Wurst4; ё>ѹҁ@ѯƉѹƉ>ѯѫѫѣѩ@ KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬25 perhaps љ>ѓѯѧț@, though that would probably extend beyond the right margin. ‫ ۅ‬17 țёѩџŶ(?) Wurst4; a supralinear stroke over eta, marking suspended nu, is probably faded. ‫ ۅ‬23–24 ёȗ>ȝѣǼѯѹ@_їёѵƉ , cf. Mark 9:2, 14:33

Appendix A: Text and Translation

42 1

5

10

15

20

25

under [heaven]. And [when his disciples heard] this, they said to him, “Teacher, help us, and [. . .].” Jesus said to them, “Stop contending with me. Each of you has his own star, […] of the stars will […] what belongs to it. […] I was not sent to the corruptible race, but to the mighty and incorruptible race. For no enemy has ruled [over] that race, nor one of the stars. I’m telling you, the pillar of fire shall fall quickly, and that race shall not be moved by the stars.” After Jesus said this he left and [took Judas] Iscariot with him. He said to him, “The water on the high mountain is [from]

155

156

 1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩѕ țѫŶѷ>@>@ƉѫƉёƉѷƉƉѫŶѷёȗ љѣёѫљѷ>ѵѯ@>ѱ@џƉѕƉџƉ ȕџѫƉѩƉŶ>ѱѥё@ѳƉѱƉѯƉѵƉ>– @ ѳѯѵѩѱљљѣёѣҁƉѫƉȝƉљƉ>– @ѫŶ ѵёѯѹѯљѣȕƉ>– @! ёѧѧёѫŶѷёȗљѣљѷѵѯѩŶѱѱёƉ>ѳё@їљѣ ѵѯѵѩŶѱѫѯѹѷљёѹҁѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱƉѯѵ љѷѫёѩѯѹѫљѓƉ>ѯ@ѧȝљ>ѫљȗѫ@ё! ȝҁțѩёѫѫѷңѣƉѫƉѩ>ѫŶѷ@ѕƉљƉ ѫљёљѷѩŶѩёѹvacёѧ>ѧёљѵѫёȕҁ@ ѱљȝѫљѫљțѫȕёљƉ>ѫљțѱ@љ ȝёȗѫŶңѣǼѯѹїёѵѫё>ȗѷёѩѯ@љѣ ȝљёȕѫŶѥёѳѱѯѵѱљƉ>ѷљ@ѯѹѫѷёѵȗ ѫŶңǼѷљљѣѕљѫљёѱ>љ@ȝёȗѫŶңѣ ǼƉƩџƩѵȝљѕљѫљёѫѣѩѫŶѳƉҁѩљѵљ ѫёѩѯѹѫŶңǼѫљѹѿѹ>ѽ@џѫёƉѣƉїƉљƉ ѫŶѷѯѯѹțѯѷёѫљѹȕёѫȝҁѥ љѓѯѧѩѱљѯѹѯљѣȕѫŶѷѩѫѷљ ѳѯёѹҁѫŶѷљѱљѱƩѫƩёѱҁѳȝљ ѓѯѧѩŶѩѯѯѹѫљѹѵҁѩёѩљѫ ѵљѫёѩѯѹvacѫљѹѿѹѽџїљѵљ ѫёѷёѫțƩѯѯѹvacёѹҁѫŶѵљȗѣѷѹR  љƉțƉѳёǼvacѱљȝёȗѫŶңѣǼѯѹїёѵ ȝљљѹѫёѳѯѹңљѫŶңѣѱѥљѵљљ  ѱљѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶѫŶѳҁѩљѱљȝёȗ ѫŶңѣǼƩџƩѵvacȝљѯѹёѷңѯѩѱљ!

 1 țѫŶѷ>@>@ёѫёƉȡƉ>@ѫѷёȗ KW; ѷ>љѭѯ@ѹƉ>ѵѣ@ёѫёƉȡ>@ѫѷёȗ BB, but ѹ is not legible; the ink traces fit ѷbetter than ȡ the trace before ѫŶѷёȗfits ѯ or љ. ‫ ۅ‬2 љѷ>ѵѯ @ VDV (cf. line 6); perhaps љѷ>ҁȟљ@ (in contrast to line 6?); >ѱ@џƉѕƉџƉѩƉѱƉ KW; љѣёѫ љѷ>ѯѹџțțёѷѱ@џƉѕƉџƉѩƉѱƉ BB; љѷ>ҁѱљљѓѯѧțѫŶѫŶѷѱ@џƉѕƉџƉѩƉѱƉ SR ‫ ۅ‬3 ȕџѫѫŶ>@ѯƉ >@Ǽ KW; >ѱѥё@Ǽ_ѳѯѵ VDV, Nagel1, Cherix, Turner; ȕџѫѫŶ>ѷёѹѷҁ@ȟƉљƉ ѩŶƉ>ѩѯȗ ѩѱѥё@Ǽ BB; ȕџѫѫŶ>ёѷѥёѳ@ѱƉѯƉѵƉ>țѩŶѱѥё@Ǽ SR, but there are only 3 spaces in the first lacuna. The traces after ȕџѫresemble the left-hand of ѩŶ or ѫŶ. It is not certain that the ink trace of the final character is Ǽ since no diaeresis is visible. ‫ ۅ‬4 ёѣҁѫљƉѷƉ>ȝѯțѩŶ@ SR; >ѩѫŶ@ѫŶ_ѵё Nagel1, KW; ѷƉљƉѫƉѯƉѹƉ>ѩŶѫŶ@ѫŶ_ѵё BB ‫ ۅ‬5 ѯѹѯљƉѣƉȕ ёƉȗƉёƉѫƉёƉѽƉҁƉѳƉѣƉ BB ‫ ۅ‬7 ѱƉ>ѕљ@ѫƉѯѵ KW, BB, cf. 44.3; ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱƉѯѵ VDV, SR, Turner ‫ ۅ‬8 >ѫŶȗѫ@ё KW; >ѵљѫ@ё BB ‫ ۅ‬9 ңѣƉѫƉѩ>ѯѯȕљ ѫŶ@ȡƉѕƉљƉ KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬10 ёѧ>ѧё љȗѫёȕҁ@_ѱљ Nagel1, SR; ёѧ>ѧё љѵѫёȕҁ@_ѱљ VDV, BB, Turner ‫ ۅ‬11 љƉ>ѫљțѱ@љ KW ‫ ۅ‬12 ѫёƉ>ȗȝљțѳёѓѓ@љѣ KW, Nagel1, BB; ѫёƉ>ȗȝљѷёѩѯ@љѣTurner, though there are only 5 spaces in the lacuna. One expects ȝљEXWthe scribe may have omitted it due to the ȝљZKLFKIROORZV on line 13.

Appendix A: Text and Translation

43 1

5

10

15

20

25

[. . .]. It did not come to [water . . .] spring [. . .] tree of [the fruit . . .] [. . .] of this realm. For [. . .] time [. . .]. But it came to water the garden of god and the [fruit] that will endure. For [it] will not defile the [. . .] of that race, but [it will exist] for ever and ever.” Judas said to him, “[Tell] me, what fruit does this race have?” Jesus said, “The souls of each human race will die. But these ones, when they have completed the time of the kingdom and the spirit separates from them, their bodies will die, but their souls will live and they will be taken up.” Judas said, “What, then, shall the rest of the human races do?” Jesus said, “It is impossible

157

158

 1

5   10

15

20

 25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩї љѷȝѯљȝѫŶѯѹ>ѱљ@ѷ>ѳё@ѫŶѵљȝѣ ѫљѹƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ>ѷё@ǼƉѯƉѫƉѷљѡљ ѯƉѹ>ёѷңѯ@ѩƉѱƉљƉ>љѷȝѯ@ѩѱѕљѫѯѵ >ѫȝҁț@ѩѩŶѫŶѷѵѯѻѣёѫѻѡёѳѷџ >ѩѫŶ@ѷƉңѣȝѫŶѷёѷёѩѣљѳҁѩљ ѫƉѡƉѫџѷѯѵѫŶѷљѫљѹѿѹѽџ ѓƉџƉѥƉљțƩѳёѣљѫёѣҁѫљѷțƩѣѱȕҁǼ ț>ёѩџ@ѫȡȝҁѩŶѩѯѵѫџѷѫŶ ȝƉ>љѩѫё@ѳƉѽƉҁƉѫƉѯƉѹƉ>ї@љƉёƉ>ѕ@ѕƉљѧѯѵƉ >ѯѹїљї@ѹѫƉёƉѩƉѣƉѵƉѫёȕѫёѹ >љѫёѣљѷ@ѩŶѩёѹѫƉёƉǼƉљƉѷƉљѳљ ѷƉ>ѫѯң@ѫƉѕƉљѫљёљѷѯѹёёѓ ѫƉ>ёѫёѹљ@ѳƉѯѯƉѹvacѫёѣѫŶѷљѳљ>ȗ@ ȝѯѯѹ>ѫң@ѣƉǼƩџƩѵёȗѓҁѥvacat (±5 spaces) ѱљȝёȗ>ѫ@ңƉѣǼѯѹїёѵȝљѱѵёțѫŶ ѡљѫŶѷ>ё@ѥƉѵҁѷѩљѳѯѯѹѷџѳѯ>ѹ@ ѵƉҁѷѩțҁѷѯѫљѳѯǼёљѣѫёѹ ѕёѳљѹѫѯңѫŶțƩѯѳѯѩёǼƩџƩѵїљ ѫŶѷљѳљȗѵҁѷѩёȗѵҁѓљѱљ ȝёȗѫёȗȝљёțƩѳѯѥźѥѳŶѕѹѩѫё ѝљҁƁѱѩљțѩŶѫѷŶѣƩѕїёѣѩҁѫ ёѧѧёȕёȝљțƩҁҁѥźѷёёѫљѽљ ѩŶѩѯѥvacѱƉљȝёȗѫёȗѫŶңѣѣѯѹ їёѵȝљёǼѫёѹљѳѯǼțѩŶѻѯѳѯ ѩƉёљѳљѱѩѫѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѩѩё ѡџѷџѵțѣƩҁѫљљѳѯљѣѵљ 

1 [ѱ]љҕѷ KW ‫ ۅ‬3RU>љѷѵѯ@FIѯƉѹƉѫƉ>țѯѣѫ@љƉ ѫƉёƉ>ѵёțѯѹ@%%ѯѹҕѫҕ[ёѩѯѹ] ѩҕѫҕ[ѷёѣҁѫ] SR; ѯѹёƉ>ѷңѯ@ѩƉѱƉљƉ>țёѱѳё@ Turner ‫ ۅ‬4 >љѷȝѯț@ѩ KW, BB, SR, but there are only 3–4 spaces (even if the frg. with ѩ were moved one space to the right). ‫ ۅ‬5 >ѩѫŶ@ SR, Turner; perhaps >ȝљ@ ѫŶѷёѵ!ѷёѩѣљ Nagel1 ‫ ۅ‬6 >ѫŶ@ѡƉѫџѷѯѵ KW; ѫŶѷљѷѩŶ!ѫљѹѿѹѽџ SR ‫ ۅ‬7 >ѓ@ҁƉѥ KW, BB, SR, but there is not enough space (cf. width of ѓҁѥ in line 14) unless ѓ sat outside the left margin (cf. ț and ȝ in lines 8–9) but has completely faded; the traces fit ѓџ better. ‫ ۅ‬9 ȝ>љ ѯѹѷљ ѵѣ@ѯƉѹƉ >ѯѹѷљ ёѕ@ѕƉљѧѯѵƉ VDV; ȝƉ>љѩŶѫёѳѽџ@ѯƉѹƉ>їљ@ѩƉ>ѫŶƉ (sic) ёƉѕ@ѕƉљѧѯѵҕ KW; ȝ>љѩѫŶ ѵѣѯѹ@ѯƉѹƉ>їљ@ѩƉ>ѫƉŶ (sic) ёѕ@ѕƉљѧѯѵҕ BB; ȝ>љѩѫŶѳҁѩљ@ SR; there are only 8–9 spaces between ȝ and ѯ, and only two between ѯƉѹƉ and ёƉ>ѕ@ IRU ё@ѳƉѽƉҁƉѫ VHH FRPPHQWDU\ ‫ ۅ‬10 >ѯѹїљ ѩѫ ї@ѹѫƉёƉѩƉѣƉѵ KW, BB, but there are only five spaces in the lacuna (or six if the first character were written outside the margin). ‫ ۅ‬11 >љѩѩёљѷ@ѩŶѩёѹ KW, BB; >љѫёѣҁѫљѷ@ VDV, SR, but there are only 5–6 spaces. ‫ ۅ‬12 ѷƉ>љѣѫѯң@ KW, BB; traces of the upper left-hand of ѷ are visible, but there is probably not enough space for љѣ (cf. the width of ѫѯң in line 18). ‫ ۅ‬13 ѫƉ>ёѫёѹљ@ѳƉѯѯƉѹ KW

Appendix A: Text and Translation

44 1

5

10

15

20

25

to sow upon a [rock] so that their [fruit] may be harvested. Likewise, it is [impossible to sow upon] the [defiled] race, along with perishable wisdom [and] the hand that created mortals, so that their souls to go up to the realms on high. Indeed I say to you (pl.), [no ruler], nor angel, nor] power will be able to see those (realms) that [the great], holy race [will see].” And after Jesus said this he left. Judas said, “Teacher, just as you listened to all of them, now listen to me. For I have seen a great vision.” But when Jesus heard (this) he laughed. He said to him, “Why are you so worked up, you thirteenth daimon? If you speak too, I shall bear with you.” Judas said to him, “I saw myself in the vision. The twelve disciples are stoning me. They’re

159

160

 1

5

10

15

20

25

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩљ ѱџѷ>ѫѵҁǼѩŶѱȕё@ёƉѹƉҁƉё>љѣ@љѣѯѫ љѱѩёљ>ѫѷёѣѯѹёțѷѩŶѩѯȗ@ѫŶƉѵҁѥŶ ёљѣѫёѹљƉ>ѯѹџǼțѩŶѱѷѯѱѯ@ѵƉёѹ ҁѱљȗȕѣѫёѓёѧѫёȕƉ>ȕѣѷȗŶ@ёѫ ѫљѳљțѫŶѫѯңїљѫѳҁѩљѥƉ>ҁ@ѷљ љѳѯȗѱљёѹҁѫљѯѹѵѷљѕџѫƉѯƉѹ љƉѷљѱљѫŶңѣѱџљѣљѷѩŶѩƉ>ёѹ@ёѹ ҁțѫŶѷѩџѷљѩѱџǼљѳ>љ@џ >– @ѥź >@ȕљƉ>@љƉȝљ ѱѵёƩțȕѯѱѷŶźțҁљțѯ>ѹѫѩ@ѫŶѫѣѳҁ ѩљёȗѯѹҁȕѓŶѫŶңѣ>ǼƩџƩѵ@ѱљȝёȗ ȝљёѱљѥѵѣѯѹѱѧё>ѫё@ѩѩѯѥ ҁƁǼѯѹїёёѹҁȝљѫŶȗƉѩŶѱȕё ёѫѫŶңѣѱљȝѱѯѫŶѳҁ>ѩ@љѫѣѩ ѫŶѡѫџѷѯѫљѓҁѥљțѯѹѫљ ѱџљѣѫŶѷёѥѫёѹљѳѯȗȝљѱѷѯ ѱѯѵѕёѳљѷѩŶѩёѹѫŶѷѯȗѱљ ѷѯѹёѳљțљѳѯȗѫŶѫљѷѯѹёёѓ ѱѩёљѷљѩŶѱѳƩџѩѫŶѱѯѯƩț ѫёѳŶљѳѯѩŶѩёѹёѫѯѹїљѱљțƩѯ ѯѹёѧѧёљѹѫёҁțƩљѳёѷѯѹѫŶ ѯѹѯљѣȕѫѣѩțѩŶѱёѣҁѫѩѫŶ ѫŶѫёѕѕљѧѯѵљѷѯѹёёѓљѣѵ țџџѷљёƉљѣȝҁљѳѯѥѫŶѩѩѹ! ѵѷџѳѣѯѫѫŶѷѩѫѷљѳѯ!!φ

  2 ѱѣѩё .: WKHUH PD\ EH D IDGHG LRWD љ>ѫѷёѣѯѹёțѷ ѩŶѩѯȗ@ Nagel1; љ>ѷѩŶѩёѹ  ёѥȕѣѫљ@ BB; љ>ѫѷёѣѱҁѷ љѳѯȗ@ SR; љ>ѷљ ѫљѣȕѣѫљ@ Turner ‫ ۅ‬3 љƉ>ѯѹџǼ țѩŶ ѱѣѷѯѱѯ@ѵƉ Turner (cf. ѱѷѯѱѯѵin lines 17–18); љ>ѯѹџљѣѫŶёљѣџ@ѵ Nagel1; љƉ>ѯѹџљѣ ѫѷљѧљѣѯ@ѵҕ BB; љƉ>ѯѹџǼ țѩŶ ѱљљѣѷѯѱѯ@ѵƉ SR ‫ ۅ‬4 >ȕѣѷȗŶ@ KW ‫ ۅ‬6–7 ѯƉѹљƉѷљ, see commentary ѯѹѫŶѷȗŶ ѯѹ!ѵѷљѕџƉ † ѫƉѯƉѹ_ѯƉѷљ † KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬8–9 љ>ѳљ ѯѹ@ѩƉџ_>џȕљ@ KW; љ>ѳљѯѹ@ѩƉџ_>џȕљѫțџѷ@ȗŶƉ>ѫљѹȡљѯѯѹѫё@ѥƉŤ BB; љѳ>љѯѹ@ѩƉџ_>џȕљѫŶѫŶѳҁѩљ љѹѥҁѷљљѳѯ@ѥŤ SR ‫ ۅ‬10 >ёѹҁѫљѹȕѩŶ@ȕљ>ѩŶѩѯѥțёѣ@ѯƉȝљ BB, but there are 10–11 spaces in the lacuna before ȕ; >ѷѯѷљ ёȗѥҁѳ@ȕ љ>ǼƩџƩѵ ёȗȝѯѯ@ѵƉ ȝљ SR; >ёѹҁ ёљѣѯѹҁ@ȕљ>љȝѯѯ@ѵƉȝљ Turner. The ink traces before ȝ fit љ better than ѯ or ѵ (note the horizontal stroke in the center). ‫ ۅ‬12 >ǼƩѵ@ KW, BB (cf. 46.8), though there are three spaces in the lacuna.

Appendix A: Text and Translation

45 1

5

10

15

20

25

chasing me [rapidly]. Yet then I came to the place where [I had followed] you. I saw [a house in this place], and its size my eyes could not measure. Great people were surrounding it, and that house was roofed with † lightning. † And in the middle of the house there was [. . .] [. . .] Teacher, receive me too with these people.” [Jesus] responded saying, “Your star has led you astray, Judas. For indeed, no mortally born human is worthy to enter the house that you saw. For that is the place kept for the holy ones, the place where neither the sun nor moon nor day will rule, but they will always stand in the realm with the holy angels. Behold, I have told you the mysteries of the kingdom,

161

162  1

5

10

15

 20

25 



The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩѵ ёѹҁёǼƉѷѵёѓѯѥƉ>љѷљѱ@ѧƉёѫџ! ѫŶѫŶѵƉ>ѣ@ѯƉѹёƉѹ>ҁѫѷёѹ@ѷѫѯѯѹѵ ѫŶ>ѫŶѵёѷ@ѱƉљљȝѫŶ!! ѱѩƉ>ѫŶѷѵ@ѫƉѯѯѹѵѫѫёѣҁѫ!!! ѱљȝёƉ>ȗ@ѫƉңѣǼѯѹїёѵȝљѱѵёƩțѩџ ѱѯѷљțƩҁѱёѵѱљѳѩёțѹѱѯѷёѵ ѵ>љ@ѫѫёѳѽҁѫёȗѯѹҁȕѓŶѫŶңѣ ǼƩѵ>ѱљ@ȝƉёȗѫёȗȝљёѩѯѹѫŶѷё ȕƉ>ёȝљѫ@ѩŶƉѩƉ>ё@ѥƉ>љѷѕљѫљёљѷ@ >ѯѹёёѓѯѹѽțѣѫёȝљљѥљѓҁѥ@ > љѳƉ>ѯѵё@ѧƉѧёȝљљѥљȕҁѱљљ > ѥёƉȕ>ёțѯ@ѩƉ ѫŶțƩѯѹѯљѥѫёѹљ > ѷѩѫŶ> ѷљ@ѳѯѩѫŶѷљѵѕљѫљё > > ѷџѳѵŶ>ѫ@ёǼѫŶѷљѳљȗѵҁѷѩŶ > љѳѯѯ>ѹ@ѫŶңѣǼѯѹїёѵѱљȝёȗ > ѫёȗȝљƉѯѹѱљѱљțƩѯѹѯѫŶѷё > љѣȝѣѷȗȝљёѥѱѯѳȝѷŶљѷѕљ ѫљёљѷѩŶѩёѹёȗѯѹҁȕѓŶ ѫŶңѣǼƩџƩѵѱљȝёȗȝљvacѥѫёȕҁ ѱљѩŶѩљƩțѩѫŶѷѣƩѕvacёѹҁ!! ѥѫёȕҁѱљљѥѵțƩѯѹѯѳŶѷțѣ ѷѩŶѱѥљѵљѱљѫŶѕљѫљёёѹ ҁѥѫёȕҁѱљљѥёѳȝѣљȝҁ ѯѹѫŶțёљѯѹѫѫљțƩѯѯѹѵљѫёsѥ –––! ѫёѥёѹҁѫљѥѓƉҁƉѥƉљѱȕҁǼ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 2–3 ёƉѹ>ҁѵљѫёѷ@ѫѯѯѹѵ_ѫŶѷƉ>љѥѩѫŶѷљѳѯѷёѣљ@ѷƉљ BB; ёƉѹ>ҁѩѱѩѫŶ@ѷѵ!ѫѯѯѹѵ _ ѫŶѫ>ёѕѕљѧѯѵљѷёѩёț@ѷƉљVDV; ёƉѹ>ҁљѱѩѫŶ@ѷѵ!ѫѯѯѹѵ_ѫŶѫ>ёѳѽҁѫљѷёѩёț@ѷƉљ Turner; ёƉѹ>ҁ љѱѩѫŶ@ѷѵ!ѫѯѯѹѵ _ ѫŶѫƉ>ёѳѽҁѫ љѷѯѹљțѵёț@ѫљ SR. Emendation is not necessary as the spelling ѷѫѯѯѹ (for ѷѫѫŶѯѯѹ) is used throughout the Codex (cf. 4.23 [pace KW]; 28.7, 28.15; 62.21). On line 3, perhaps ѫŶ>ѷљѥѕљѫљё@ ? The trace after the lacuna fits the upper right-hand of ѱ or ѷ ‫ ۅ‬9–11 cf. 35.23–26; ѫŶƉѩƉёƉ>ѥ@ ȝƉ>љ ѫљѥѯѹȝ_ёǼ љѫѵѣѯѹ ѫёǼ љѷљѥѫёѹ@ _ љѳ>ѯѯѹ@ BB; ȕƉ>ёȝљ ѫ@ѩƉŶѩёƉ>ѥ љ@ȝƉ>ѫŶ ѫŶѩѹѵѷџѳѣѯѫ ѫŶѷѩѫŶѷ@љѳѯ ѯѹѫ ȟѯѩ ȝљ љѥљѓҁѥ љѳ>ѯѵ ёѧ@ѧƉё SR; ȕ>ѯȝѫљ@ ѩŶƉѩƉѯƉ>ѥ@ȝƉ>љѯѹѩѯѫѯѫ@ _>љѥљѳŶțѹѱѯѷёѵѵљѫѕŶѳŶȝѯљѣѵ@ _љѳƉ>ѯѯѹ@ Turner ‫ ۅ‬24–25 Probably an omission by homioarcton; see commentary for discussion; ѵљ_ Nagel1, KW, VDV, BB; ѵљ_ Turner

Appendix A: Text and Translation

46 1

5

10

15

20

25

and I have taught you about the error of the stars. And [. . .] has been sent [on high] over the twelve realms.” Judas said, “Teacher, surely my own seed does not dominate over the rulers.” Jesus responded saying to him, “Come, and I shall [speak] with you [about the holy race – not so that you will go to it], but so that you will mourn deeply when you see the kingdom with its entire race.” When Judas heard this, he said to him, “What profit have I gained by your setting me apart from that race?” Jesus answered, saying, “You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the rest of the races, and you will rule over them. In the last days they to you. And you will not go up

163

164

 1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѩƩѝ љѷvacѕ>љѫљёљѷѯѹ@ёƉёƉѓvac>ѱљ@ȝƉёƉȗ ѫŶңѣǼƩџƩѵȝƉ>љёѩѯ@ѹƉѫƉѷƉёƉ>ѷѵ@ёƉѓѯѥ љѷѓљѫƉ>ѩѹѵѷџѳѣѯѫѫёѣљ@ѷƉѫё ѫёѹƉљƉѳƉ>ѯ@ѯƉѹƉѫƉңƉѣƉ>@ѫŶƉѳҁ ѩљvacȗȕѯѯѱѕёѳѫŶңѣѯƉvac>ѹѫ@ѯƉңѫёѣ ҁѫёѹҁѯѹёѷёѳƉџȝȗvacѱёƉ>Ǽ@љƉѷљ ѩŶѱљѵѧёѯѹљѫŶѕљѫљvacёѫŶ>ёѕ@ѕƉљ ѧѯѵѫёѹљѱљȗȕѣљѳљƉvacѯƉ>ѹѫ@ѯƉң ѩѱѫƩёѫƉёƉțƉѯƉѳƉёƉ>ѷ@ѯƉѫƉ>ѫțџѷ@ȗŶ! ѱёǼљѷљѩŶѱљѓёѧѫёѕƉ>ѕљѧѯ@ѵƉ! ѫƉёƉѹƉљƉѳƉѯȗѯѹїљѩѱ>љѩ@љƉѹљ ѫŶțџѷȕёѱȗŶѯѹїљ>ѩ@ѱѯѹѩ ѹR  ѷљљѳѯȗѫŶѧёѯѹљƉ>ѫŶ@ѳёѫ!!! ёѹҁёѵѯѹҁѫțŶљѓѯƉ>ѧ@ѩѱѩёљ ѷѩŶѩёѹѫŶңѣѯѹѥƉѧѯѯƉѧљѫŶѯѹѯ Ǽѫvacёѹҁѱљȝёȗȝљ^ȝƉљ`ѩёѳљȗ ȕҁѱљѫŶңѣѯѹёѕѕљѧѯѵљѷё ѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵvacёѹҁёȗљѣљѓѯѧ țѫŶѷљѥѧѯѯѧљѫŶңѣѯѹѫѯңѫёѕ ѕƉљѧѯѵѱёѹѷѯѕљѫџѵѱѫѯѹ ѷƉљѩŶѱѯѹѯǼѫvacёѹҁvacёѹȕҁ ѱљљѷѓџѷȗŶѫŶңѣѥёѣȗѷѯѯѹ ѫёѕѕљѧѯѵљѓѯѧțѣѷѫѥёѣ ңџѱљёѹҁёѹȕҁѱљљѷѱё ѳёѵѷёѵѣѵѩŶѱёѹѷѯѕљѫџѵ ѫёѕѕљѧѯѵvacёѹҁѱљȝёȗ

 2 ȝ>љёѩѯ@ѹƉ ѫŶƉѷƉёƉ>ѷѵ@ёƉѓѯѥ KW (cf. 46.1, 46.8–9); the trace of ѫ is very uncertain (and the conjunctive is spelled ѷё without ѫat 35.24). ‫ ۅ‬3 љѷѓљѫƉ>s љ@ѷƉѫёƉ KW; ѫƉ>љѡџѱѫёљѣљѷљљ@ѷƉѫёƉ Turner; ѫƉ>ѣёѣҁѫѫŶѯѹѯљѣѫѩŶ@ѱƉљƉȗƉ BB; ѫƉ>țҁѓ ѷџѳѯѹљѷљѫ@ѫƉљƉѹƉ65the final ink traces fit neither ѱљȗ nor ѫљѹ, and the characters ѫё are particularly legible (cf. the shape of ѫёat the end of line 5). ‫ ۅ‬7 ѩѱљѵ variant for ѩѱљȕ (cf. 48.23) ‫ ۅ‬4 ѫƉȟƉѣƉѧƉёƉѯƉ>vacѹљ@ KW ‫ ۅ‬8 љѳљƉ vac ѱƉ>ѫ@ѯƉң KW, BB; only a slight ink trace is visible after the vacat, and there are two spaces in the lacuna before ѯƉȟ. ‫ ۅ‬9 ѱѫƩё Wurst1 (frg. E21 Ĺ); >ѫțџѷ@ȗŶ KW ‫ ۅ‬10 љѷљ Wurst1 (frg. E21 Ĺ)

Appendix A: Text and Translation

47 1

5

10

15

20

25

to the holy race.” Jesus said, “[Come], and I will teach you about the [mysteries] which [. . .] human will see. For there is a great and boundless realm, the size of which no angelic race has seen. [In] it there is a [a great] Invisible Spirit, whom angel eye has not seen, nor inner thought received, nor has he been called by any name. In that place appeared a luminous cloud, and he (the Invisible Spirit) said, ‘Let an angel come forth for my attendance.’ And from out of the cloud came a great angel, Autogenes, the god of the light. And on his behalf four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they came into being for the attendance of the angelic Autogenes. And [Autogenes] said,

165

166

The Gospel of Judas !!!!

ѩџ  1

5

10

15

20

25 

!!!!

ѫŶңƉѣѱƉ>ё@ѹѷѯ>ѕљѫџѵȝљ@ѩƉёѳљȗ ȕҁѱƉ>љ@ѫŶңѣƉѯƉ>ѹёѣҁѫ@ёѹҁёѵȕҁ ѱљ>ѥёѷёѡљѫѷёȗȝѯ@ѯѵёѹҁ ёȗѷ>ёțƩѯ@ѩŶѱȕѯѳŶѱѫŶѻҁѵѷџѳ љѷѳƉ>љȗ@vacѳŶљѳѯљțѳёǼљȝҁȗёѹ ҁѱљȝvacёȗȝљѩёѳѯѹȕҁѱљ ѫŶ>țƩ@ѫŶƉvacёѕѕљѧѯѵљѹȕѩŶȕљ ѫ>ёȗvacёѹ@ҁёѹȕҁѱљѫŶңѣțƉƩѫƉ ѷƉ>ѓёѫŶ@ёѷџѱƉљёѹҁѱљȝёȗ ȝљ>ѩёѳ@љȗȕҁѱљѫŶңѣƉ>ѯѹё@ѣƉ ҁѫѫŶѯƉѹѯǼѫёѹҁёȗȕҁѱљ ёȗѷёț>Ʃѯ@ѱѩљțѵѫёѹѫŶѻҁ ѵѷџѳљƉ>ѳљ@ѳƉѯљƩțѳёǼљȝҁȗ! ѩŶѫŶțѫŶѷѓёѫёѕѕљѧѯѵѫёѷџ ѱљљѹȕƉѩȕљёѹҁѡљѷљѷёљѣ ѫŶѷёȗѷёƉѩѣѯѩŶѱѥљѵљљѱљ ѫŶѫŶёѣҁѫѩŶѱѯѹѯǼѫёѹҁёȗ ѷѯѹѳŶvacљѳѯљțѳёǼљȝ>ҁ@ѯѹёѹ ҁёȗѷёѩѣѯѫёѹѫŶțƩѫѷѓёѫёѕ ѕљѧѯѵѫёѷџѱљљѷљѹțѹŹѱџ ѳљѵѣёёѹҁѫљȗȕѯѯѱѫŶңѣ ёƩїƩёƩѩƩёƩѵțƩѫѷȕѯѳƩѱѫŶңџѱљ ѫѷљѱѯѹѯǼѫѷёљѣљѷљѩŶѱљѵ ѧёѯѹљѫёѕѕљѧѯѵѫёѹљѳѯѵ țƩѫѫёǼљѷѯѹѩѯѹѷљљѳѯѯѹ ѷџѳѯѹȝљѫѯѹѷљ^ёѹҁёȗ`

 2 ѯƉ>ѹёѣҁѫ@, cf. lines 10–11; ѫŶȟѣƉёƉ>їёѩёѵ@ Plisch, KW; ѥƉ>љёѣҁѫ@ёѹҁёȗ!ȕҁ_ѱљ BB ‫ ۅ‬3 >ѫȞѣѷљѱѳѯѯї@ѯѵ Turner, KW; >ѫѡљѫŶѷёȗȝѯ@ѯѵ Nagel2; there are 12–13 spaces in the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬4 ёȗѷ>ёțƩѯ@, cf. line 12; ёȗѷ>ёѩѣѯ@ KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬9 ѱљȝёȗ Wurst1 (frg E21 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬26 ^ёѹҁёȗ` BB, Turner (dittography on 49.1)

Appendix A: Text and Translation

48

1

5

10

15

20

25

‘Let there be a [realm],’ and it happened [just as he said]. And he [established] the first light to rule over it. And he said, ‘Let there be some angels to serve it,’ and there were countless myriads. And he said, ‘Let there be a luminous realm,’ and there it was. He established the second light to rule over it with countless myriads of serving angels. And in this way he created the rest of the realms of light, and he caused them to be ruled. He created countless myriads of angels for their service. Now Adamas was in the first cloud of light, the (cloud) which no angel has seen among everything called ‘divine.’

167

168

 1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

>ѩƩѡ@ ёѹҁ>ёȗȝѱѯѫŶѵџѡțѫŶѱѩёљ@ ѷѩѩёѹ>ѫŶȟѣёїёѩёѵѥёѷё@ ѡѣѥҁѫ>– @ ёѹҁѥƉёƉѷƉёѱѣѫљѫŶѱƉ>љљѣёѕ@ ѕљѧѯѵvacёѹҁёȗѯѹѯѫțŶѷƉ>ѕљѫљё@ ѫёvacѻѡёѳѷѯѵѫŶѵƩџƩѡљѓ>ѯѧ@ ѩŶѱѩŶѫŶѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѻƉ>ҁѵѷџѳ@ ѫŶțƉѯƉѯƉѹƉ ѷŶ>ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљƉ>ёѹҁѷѯѷљ@ ёȗѯѹѯѫțŶȕȗљѵѫѯ>ѯѹѵ@ ѫŶѻҁƉѵѷџѳțƩѫѷѕљѫ>љёѫ@ё! ѻѡёƉѳѷѯѵƉțѩŶѱƉѯѹ>ҁ@ȕƉѩѱљ ѱƉƩѫƩёƉѫљȕȗљѵѫѯƉ>ѯѹ@ѵїљțҁ ѯѹѩŶѻҁѵƉѷџѳё>ѹѯ@ѹѯѫƩț ѷƩѭљѓѯѧѫŶѻҁѵѷџƉѳƉțƩѫѷѕљ ѫљёѫёѻѡёѳѷѯѫ>ț@ѩƉѱѯѹ ҁƉȕѩŶѱљѱƩѫƩёȝљљѹљȕҁ ѱљѫŶȟѣѷƉљѹџѱљŪѫŶũȡѯѹљѱѯѹё ёѹҁѱљѹљѣҁѷѱљѱѩѫƩѷ ѵѫѯѯѹѵѫёѣҁѫѩŶѱѩѫƩѷ ѵѫѯѯѹѵѩŶѻҁѵѷџѳёѹҁ ѥёѷёёѣҁѫѫѣѩѵѯѯѹѫѯѹ ѳёѫѯѵȝљљѹљȕҁѱљѫŶȟѣ ȕȗљƉѵѫѯѯѹѵѫѯѹѳёѫѯѵ  ѩŶѱљƉȕƉȗљѵѫѯѯѹѵѩŶѻҁѵѷџѳ ёѹҁѥёѷёѱѯѹёѱѯѹё!!

 1–3 ёѹҁ>ёȗ@, cf. 48.26;ёѹҁ>ёȗȝѱѯțҁҁѷѫŶѷѕљѫљёљ@_ѷѩѩёѹ>ёѵѯѹҁѫțљѓѯѧ ѥёѷё@_ѡѣѥҁѫ >ѩŶѱљѱѫё ѫŶёțѯѳёѷѯѫ@ BB; ёѹҁ >ёȗѯѹҁѫț ѫŶѷѕљѫљё љ@_ѷѩѩёѹ >ѫŶѷёȗѷёѩѣѯ ѩŶѩѯѵ ѥёѷё@_ѡѣѥҁѫ [ѫࡄёїёѩёѵ ѫѯѹѯȧѫ] SR; ёѹҁ >țѳёǼ țѫŶ ѷȟџѱљ љ@_ѷѩѩёѹ >ёѹȝѱѯ ѫŶѵƩџƩѡ ѥёѷё@_ѡѣѥҁѫ >ѩŶѱљȗљѣҁѷ ёƩїƩёƩѩƩёƩѵ@ Turner. Consider also ѡѣѥҁѫ>ѩŶѱёѹѷѯѕљѫџѵ] or [ѩŶѱѫѯѹѷƉљѩŶѱѯѹѯǼѫ@anticipating ѱҕ[љљѣёѕ]ѕљѧѯѵ on lines 4–5 (cf. 47.25–26) ‫ ۅ‬4 ѫŶѱƉ>љљѣёѕ@ KW, BB; ѫŶѫƉ>љљѣёѕ@ SR, Turner; the trace before the lacuna fits the lower left-hand stroke of ѱ or ѫ. ‫ ۅ‬6 ѫŶѵƩџƩѡљѓ>ѯѧ@ Wurst1 (frg. I5 Ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬7 ѫѻƉ>ҁѵѷџѳ@ Wurst1 (frg. I5 Ĺ), cf. lines 19–20 ‫ ۅ‬8 ѫŶțƉѯƉѯƉѹƉ ѷŶ>ѵțƩѣ@ѩƉљƉ, see commentary; ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљƉ   >s@ KW; ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉѷƉљ ѫƉїƉ>ѹѫёѩѣѵ@ BB; ѫŶƉȝƉѯѹѷŶ>ё@ȗƉƩѷƉљ ѫƉ>ёѕѕљѧѯѵ@ SR; [ёѹҁ ѷѯѷљ] (cf. 57.10–11) or [ѩѫѫѵҁѵ] (cf. 55.14)

Appendix A: Text and Translation

49 1

5

10

15

20

And [Adamas begat Seth in] that [place after the] image [of . . .] and after the likeness of [this] angel. And he revealed the imperishable race of Seth to the twelve androgynous [lights. And then] he revealed the seventy-two lights among the imperishable race by the will of the Spirit. And the seventy-two lights themselves revealed three hundred and sixty lights among the imperishable race by the will of the Spirit, so that their number is five for each. And their father is the twelve realms of the twelve lights. And in each realm (there are) six heavens, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two lights; and in each

169

170

1

5

10

15

20

 

The Gospel of Judas >ѫŶ@   >ѩŶѩѯѯѹȡѯѹѫŶѵѷ@љƉѳƉљҁѩё >ȝљљѹљȕҁѱљ@ѫȟѣѷƩѭ >ѫŶѵѷљѳљҁѩёѫŶѷѯ@ѯƉѹƉёƉѹƉȡ >ѫёѹѯѹ@љѭѯѹѵѣёѩƩѫѯѹѩѫƩѷ >țёțѫ@ѵƉѷŪѳũёѷѣёѫёѕѕљѧѯѵѫ >ё@ѷџѱљљѹљѯѯѹѩƩѫѯѹȕѩŶ >ȕљ@љƉѷѣїљțƩѫѱёѳѡљѫѯѵ!! >ѯѫѩѱƩ@ѫƩёљѹљѯ>ѯ@ѹѩƩѫƉѯƉѹƉ >ȕѩŶȕ@љƉѫѫёѣҁѫѷџѳѯѹѩƩѫ ѫƉ>ѯ@ѹƉѳёѫѯѵѩƩѫѫљѹѵƉѷƉљѳљ ҁѩёƉѱѩџџȕљїљѫŶѫёѷѩ ѹR  љѷѩŶѩƉ>ё@ѹƉљȕёѹƉѩѯѹѷљљƉ ѳѯѯѹ>ȝ@љѥѯѵѩѯƉѵȝљѷљ! ѻѡѯѳёƉљѓѯѧțѣѷƉѩƉѱѣҁѷ ѩƩѫѱљȕƉȗљѵѫѯѯѹѵѫŶѻҁ ѵѷџѳљƉѷƉѫљѩёȗѩѱёѹѷ   ѯ ѕљѫџѵѩƩѫѱљȗȕȗљѵѫѯƉ ѯѹѵѫŶѫёѣҁѫѱѩƉ>ё@ѫѷёȗ ѯѹҁѫțљѓѯѧѫŶțџѷȗŶѫȟѣ ѱȕѳѱѫŶѳҁѩљѩƩѫѫљȗ їѹѫёѩѣѵѫёѻѡёѳѷѯѫ ѱёѣҁѫїљѫŶѷёȗѯѹҁѫțŶљ ѓѯѧѩƩѫѷљȗѕљѫљёѱёǼљ ѷљѳљѷȟџѱљѫŶѷљѕѫƉ>ҁ@ѵѣѵ ѫŶțƩџѷȗŶѩƩѫѱёѕѕљƉѧѯѵ љȕёѹѩѯѹѷљљѳѯȗȝљ

 3 >ѫŶѵѷљѳљҁѩёѫŶѷѯ@ѯƉѹƉ KW, BB; dicolon is not necessary to fill the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬4 >ѫёѹ ѯѹ@љƉѭѯѹѵѣё KW; >ѫёѹ țѫ@љƉѭѯѹѵѣё BB ‫ ۅ‬5 >țёț ѫ@ѵƉѷѳёѷѣё VDV >ѫѯȟ ѫ@ѵƉѷѳёѷѣё KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬6 >ё@ѷџѱљWurst1 (frg. I5 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬7 >ȕљ@љƉѷѣ Wurst1 (frg. I5 ĺ) ‫ۅ‬ 14 ѻ^ѡ`ѯѳё Turner; ࢹѣѷѫ KW, BB

Appendix A: Text and Translation

171

50 1

5

10

15

20

25

of them (i.e. the seventy-two heavens), (there are) five firmaments, so that there are three hundred and sixty firmaments. [They] were given authority with a [multitude] of angelic armies without number, for glory and [service], even some virginal [spirits as well], for glory and service to all the realms and heavens and their firmaments. Now that multitude of immortals is called ‘cosmos,’ that is, ‘perishability,’ by the Father and the seventy-two lights that are with Autogenes and his seventy-two realms. This is the place in which the first human appeared with his imperishable powers. It is the realm that appeared with its race, the (realm) in which the cloud of knowledge dwells with the angel named

172

The Gospel of Judas



1

5

10

15  20

25 

>ѫƩё@

џƩѧvac>џƩѧƩџƩѡ– @ ѩƩѫvac> – @ ҁѫvac>– ѩѫŶ@ ѫŶѵvacёѫёǼvacѱљȝёȗѫŶ>ȟѣџƩѧџƩѧƩџƩѡ@ ȝљvacѩёѳѯѹȕҁѱљѫŶ>ȟѣѩѫŶѷ@ ѵѫvacѯѯѹѵѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ>ѫŶѵљѳŶљ@ ѳѯvacљȝѫŶѱљѽёѯѵѩƩѫё>ѩѫŶѷљ@ ёƉѹƉҁƉљѣѵțџџѷљёȗƉѯƉ>ѹҁѫțљ@ ѓѯѧѫŪѷũȟџѱљѫȟƉѣѯѹё>ѕѕљѧѯѵ@ љѳљƉ>ѱ@љȗțƩѯȕѯѹѯѥѳƉ>ҁѩ@љƉѓѯѧ ѱљȗљѣѫљїљљȗƉȝѯŪțũѩƉѫŶѵѫƉѯȗ љѯѹѫѷёȗѩŶѩёѹƉѩƉ>ѱѳ@ёѫȝљѫљ ѓѳҁљѷљѱёљѣѱљ>ѫŶѷ@ёѹțљѳѩџ ѫљѹљѩŶѩѯȗȝљёѱƉ>ѯѵ@ѷёѷџѵ țƩѫѥѯѯѹљїљȝљǼ>ƩёƩѧƩ@ƩїƩёƩѓƩёƩҁƩѡ ёѹƉҁѯѫёѥёѣёѕѕљѧѯѵљѣљѓѯѧ >ț@ѫŶƉѷȟџѱљȝљѵёѥѧёѵѫƩљѓѳҁ їƉ>љ@ёȗѷёѩѣѯѫŶѵѯѯѹѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ ёѹҁѵёѥѧёѵљѷѱёѳёѵѷёѵѣѵ ёѹҁѫёǼёѹȝѱѯѩŶѩѫѷѵѫѯ ѯѹѵѫёѕѕљѧѯѵțѫѩѱџѯѹљ ёѹҁёѹȝѣѫѯѹѩљѳѯѵљѱѯѹё țƩѫѩŶѱџѯѹљёѹҁѱљȝёѹѫŶ ȟѣѱѩƩѫѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫёѳѽҁѫ ѩƩѫѱѩƩѫѷѵѫѯѯѹѵѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ ȝљѩёѳљѱѯѹёѱѯѹёѩѩҁѷѫ !!!!!!>!!!@!!!!!!

 1 џƩѧ vac . [ ] KW; џƩѧvacљƉ>ѧџѡ@ BB; џƩѧ>џѧџѡ@ SR ‫ ۅ‬2–3 [ёѣ]|ҁѫ BB ‫ ۅ‬4 ѫŶȟƉ>ѣџѧљѧџѡ@ BB; ѫŶȟƉ>ѣџƩѧџƩѧƩџƩѡ@ SR; though this reconstruction appears to be too long for the space, it is permissible in light of the scribe’s tendency on this page to cram characters at the end of the line by writing in a smaller hand (cf. lines 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 25) ‫ ۅ‬6 >љѹѳŶљ@ KW, BB; >ѫŶѵљѳŶљ@Turner ‫ ۅ‬7 ё>ѩѫŶѷљ @ KW, BB; dicolon is not necessary. ‫ ۅ‬11 љ>ȗ@ȝѯƉ>ț@ѩƉ KW, BB; faint traces of a supralinear ț may be visible. ‫ ۅ‬12 ѩƉ>ѱѳ@ёѫ SR; ѫƉ>ѯѹѳ@ёѫ KW, BB; there are only two spaces in the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬17 A partial supralinear stroke appears over the characters ѫљ in ѫљѓѳҁ; the rest may have faded. ‫ ۅ‬18 ȟƉ>љ@ KW; the traces fit the lower left corner and bottom stroke of ї.

Appendix A: Text and Translation

51 1

5

10

15

20

25

El[eleth . . .] […] […] After this [Eleleth] said, ‘Let there be twelve angels [to rule] over chaos and the underworld.’ And behold, from out of the cloud appeared an angel. Fire spews forth from his face, and his likeness is [defiled] with blood. He is [named] Nebro, which means ‘apostate,’ but others say Yaldabaoth. And another angel came out of the cloud too, namely Saklas. Then Nebro created six angels, † and Saklas (did likewise) †, for attendance. And these produced twelve angels in the heavens, and each of them received a share in the heavens. And the twelve rulers said to the twelve angels, ‘Let each one of you

173

174

1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

>ѫƩѓ@  >– @ҁƉvacѫѵљ >– ѕљ@vacѫљё >– ѫvac@љƉѫŶ >ȡѯѹѫŶ@ёƉѕѕљѧѯѵѱȕѯvacѳѱ >ѱљѣƩёƩ@ƩҁƉƩѡŶƉvacѱљѷљȕёѹѩvacѯѹ >ѷљљ@ѳѯȗȝљѱљѽƩѵѱѩvacљƩț >ѵѫёѹ@ѱљțƩёƩѳƩѩƩёƩѡƩҁƩѡљvacѷљ >ƉѱѓёѧѫŶѥ@ҁƉ>ț@ѷƉѱƉљƉѱƉѩƉљvacțƉ >ȕѯѩѫŶѷ@ѱљѕƩёƩѧƩѣƩѧƩёѱѩљț ȗѷѯƉѯƉѹѱљǼƩҁƩѓƩџƩѧѱѩљƩț ȡѯѹ>ѱ@љƉёƉƩїƩҁƩѫƩёƩѣƩѯƩѵѫёљѣ ѫљѱȡƉ>ѯ@ѹƉѫŶѷёѹѳљѳѯљȝѫ ёѩѫѷ>љ@ёѹҁѫȕѯѳѱљȝѫ ѱљѽёѯ>ѵ@vacѷѯѷљѱљȝёȗѫȟѣƉ ѵёѥѧё>ѵ@ѫŶѫљȗёѕѕљѧѯŪѵũȝљ ѩёѳѫvacѷёѩѣѯѫѯѹѳҁѩљƉ>ѥё@ ѷёѱѣѫљёѹҁѥёѷёѡѣѥҁƉ>ѫ@ ѫŶѷѯѯѹїљёѹѱѧёѵѵёѫёƩїƩёƩѩ ёѹҁѷљȗѵțƩѣѩљљƩѹƩțƩёљȕёѹ ѩѯѹѷљїљљѳѯѵțƩѫѷȟџѱљ ȝљѝƩҁƩџvacțƩѳёљѣѕёѳțƩѩѱљљѣ ѳёѫљѳљѫŶѕљѫљёѷџѳѯѹȕѣ ѫљѫŶѵҁȗёѹҁѱѯѹёѱѯѹё ѩŶѩѯѯѹѵљѩѯѹѷƉљљѳѯѵ ѫŶѫљѹѳёѫ>ѵё@ѥѧёїљѩƩѱȗŶ

 1 Perhaps >ȕљљѱљȗѥѯѵѩѯѵёѹ@ҁƉ cf. NHC III 58.4–5; the ink trace after the lacuna is very obscure and may fit something other than ҁ; >ѯѹҁѫțљѓѯѧ@%% >ѳŶљѳѯљȝѫŶ ѱљȗёѣ@ҁƉѫ SR; >ѷёѩѣљ țѫŶёѕѕљѧѯѵ ёѹ@ҁƉ Turner ‫ ۅ‬2–3 Perhaps >ȕљ љѳŶѳѯ љȝѩ ѫљѹѕљ@ѫљё >ѩѯѹѷљ љѳѯѯѹ ȝљ ѫŶѕљ@ѫљё _>ѫŶёѻѡёѳѷѯѫ ѫёљѣ љѷљ ѫ@љƉ SR; >ѳŶѳѳѯљțѳёǼљȝѫŶ ѫŶѕљ@vac ѫљё_>ѫŶѫѳҁѩљёѹҁёѹȕҁѱ@љƉ Turner ‫ ۅ‬5 [ѣё]ҁҕѡ, cf. BG 8502 40.5; for ҁƉ, see commentary; >ѱљѵ@џƉѡ KW, BB, SR; >ѱљёѡ@џƉѡ Turner ‫ ۅ‬6 ѱљѽƩѵ.:%% one may read the letter as ȝ (compare with the ȝ in љȝѫ on line 13, the bottom stroke of which is faded), though the plene form (ѱљȝƩѵ) suggests otherwise (cf. ѱȝƩѵ in CT 59.17, 62.6). ‫ ۅ‬8 >ѱѓёѧѫŶѥ@ҁƉ>ț@ѷƉ cf. ѱѓёѧѩŶѱѥҁțѷ in the parallels at BG 40.6–7 and NHC III 16.21–22. See commentary for details; >ѱѓёѧѩŶѱ@ѥƉҁƉ>țѷ@ BB; >ѱёǼ ѱљѱѓёѧ@ѫŶƉѷƉ>ѵ@ёƉѷƉљ SR, but there are only 10–11 character spaces before the љ. ‫ ۅ‬10 ȗѷѯƉ>ѯ@ѹ KW, BB; ink traces of the second omicron are visible; the first RPLFURQ appears faintly below WDX. ‫ ۅ‬13 ёѩѫѷ>љ@ KW, BB; a dicolon is not necessary to fill the line (cf. 16 characters in line 24).

Appendix A: Text and Translation

52 1

5

10

15

20

[. . .]’ and they [. . .] race [. . . are] the [five] angels: the first [is Ya]ôth, who is called † the Ram; † the [second] is Harmathôth, who is [the eye of fire]; the [third] is Galila; the fourth [is] Yôbel; the fifth is Adônaios. These are the five who ruled over the underworld and the chiefs over chaos. Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and image.’ So they fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, though in the cloud she is called Zoe. For with this name all the races seek him, and each of them refers to her by their (own) names. Now Sakla did not

175

176

1

5

10

15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

>ѫƩѕ@  ѯѹљțƉ>ѵёțѫљ@ȝѱѯ љѣѩџƉ>ѷѣ@ѵțƩѫ ѫŶѕƉљѫƉ>љё@љѷљ ѷёљѣ>@>ёї@ёƉѩ ёѹҁѱљȝёȗѫёȗѫŶȟѣѱƉ>ёѕѕљ@ѧƉѯѵ ȝљљѳљѱљѥҁѫțŶȕҁѱ>љ@љѹџѱљ ѫŶѯѹѯљѣȕѩƩѫѫљѥȕџƉѳƉљvac ǼѯѹїёѵїљѱљȝёȗѫŶǼƩѵƉ>ȝљё@ȕ ѱљѱƉљțѯѹѯљѷȗѫёҁѫƉ>țѩŶ@ѩƉѯȗ ѫŶȟѣ>ѱ@ѳҁѩƉ>љ@vacѱљȝёȗ>ѫȟѣ@Ǽџѵ ȝљёțƩѳѯѥźѥѳŶƉ>ȕ@ѱџѳљ>ȝ@љёїёѩ ѩƩѫѷљȗѕљѫљёѫŶ>ѷё@ȗƉȝѣѱљȗ ѯѹѯљѣȕțƩѫѯѹџѱƉ>љ@țƩѩѱѩё ѫŶѷёȗȝѣѫѷљȗѩѫƉ>ѷ@љѳѯѫŶ! țƉџѷѵŶțƩѫѯѹџѱљѩƉƩѫƉѱљȗёѳ ѽƉҁѫѱљȝёȗѫȟѣǼ>ѯ@ѹїёѵѫŶѣƩѵ >ȝ@љȕёѱƩѫƩёѫŶѳҁѩљѩѯѹѱљ ȝƉёƉȗƉѫŶȟѣǼџƩѵȝљѡљѷљѷёљѣ ѫŶѷёѱѫѯѹѷљѯѹљƩțѵёțƩѫљ ѩŶѩƩѣѽƩёƩџƩѧљȡѫŶѫљѱƩѫƩёѫѫ ѳҁѩљѫёѹљѹȕƩѩȕљљѱљѹ ȕёѱvacѱѫѯȟїљѫŶѷёȗѯѹљƩț ѵёțѫљѫŶ!ѕƩёƩѓƩѳƩѣƩџƩѧvacљȡѫŶѫљѱƩѫƩё ѫŶѷѫѯȟѫŶѕљѫљёѫёѷѳŶѳѯ! ѱљѱƩѫƩёѩƩѫѷљѿѹѽџљѷѓљ ѱёљѣљѳљѱѥƉ>љѵ@љƉѱљѫѫљѿѹѽџ

 3 ѕƉљѫƉ>љёѫѣѩѫŶѳҁѩљѡљѷљ@ SR ‫ ۅ‬4 [. . .]ёѫ Wurst4, but the traces fit alpha and mu (compare their shape in ёїёѩ on line 11) ‫ ۅ‬7 ѫŶѯѹѯљѣȕ haplography for ѫŶѯѹѯѹѯљѣȕ, Nagel1 ‫ ۅ‬9 ҁѫƉ>ț!@ KW; the fragment with the end of lines 9–10 (containing half of an ҁ and the ȗ of ѱљȝёȗ) should be repositioned slightly upward on ms photographs; and the tiny fragment with the lower part of ѫ should be rotated 90° counter-clockwise (the fragment undoubtedly shifted at some point when the plate was moved). ‫ ۅ‬10 Ǽџѵ Wurst2 (frg. E10 ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬15 {țѫѯѹџѱљ} KW (cf. line 13), but it is probably not dittography. ‫ ۅ‬23 љ!ѕёѓѳѣџѧKW; ѕёѓѳѣљѧ BB, cf. ѯѹљƩțѵёțƩѫљѩŶѩƩѣѽƩёƩџƩѧ (lines 19–20).

Appendix A: Text and Translation

53 1

5

10

15

20

25

command [. . .] produce except [. . .] in the races [. . .] which [. . . Ad]am. And the angel said to him, ‘The life of you and your children shall be for a limited time.’” Then Judas said to Jesus, “[How] long will a person live?” Jesus answered, “Why are you so shocked that Adam and his race received his time in a limited way, in the place where he received his kingdom in a limited way, just like his ruler?” Judas said to Jesus, “Does the human spirit die?” Jesus said, “In this way God commanded Michael to give the spirits of people to them while they serve: as a loan. But the Great One commanded Gabriel to give spirits to the great kingless race, the spirit and the soul. Therefore, the rest of the souls

177

178

1

5

10  15 

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

>ѫƩ@Ʃї  ѫ>– @ѷѯѯѹ ѫŶ>–@ѯѹѯǼѫ љ>– ѱ@љƉѽёѯѵ ț>@>@ѥƉҁѷљ ѫŶ>@ѱƩѫƩёѫțƩџƩѷѷƩџƩѹƩѷƩѫ ѫŶѷ>ё@ѷƩѫѷѳљȗѯѹҁƩțțѫѷљљѣ ѵёѳѭƉțƩѫѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶѫёѕѕљ ѧƉ>ѯѵ@ѱѫѯѹƉѷƉљƉїƉљƉёƉȗƉѷƉ>ѳ@љƉѹƉ ѫƉ>ѷ@љƉѕѫҁѵѣѵѫёїёѩѩƩѫƉѫљ ѷƉ>ѫљ@ѩƉёȗțƩѣѫ>ёȝ@љƉѫљѹŪѳŶũȝѯљѣѵ љѳѯѯƉ>ѹ@ѫŶȟѣѫƉљƉѳƉҁѯѹѩѱљ! ѽёѯѵѩƉ>ѫ@ёѩƩѫѷљvacat (± 6 spaces) Ǽѯѹїёѵ>їљ@ѱƉљȝёƉȗѫ^ѣ`ǼƩџƩѵȝљ љѹѫёѳ>ѯ@ѹƉȟљѫŶȟѣѫŶѕљѫ!љёљѷѩŶƉ ѩёѹvac ѱљȝёȗѫŶȟǼǼƩџƩѵ ȝљёѧџѡҁƉѵȡȝҁѩŶѩѯѵѫџƉ ѷѫŶȝљѫƉѵѣŪѯũѯѹљƉѹȝҁѥљѓѯѧ љȝѫѫёљѣѷџѳѯѹțѯѷƉёƉѫїƉљƉ љȗȕёѫȝҁѥљѓѯѧѫŶѫљȗѯѹ ѯљѣȕѫŶѷёѹѷѯȕѯѹѫёȗѫŶ ȟѣѵёѥѧёѵȗѫџѹѫŶȟѣѱљŪѹũțѯѹ љѣѷѫѵѣѯѹѩƩѫѫŶѕљѫљё ёѹҁѫљѫŶѷёѹȝѯѯѹѫŶѵљ ȝѯѥѯѹљѓѯѧѷѯѷљѵљѫё ѱѯѳѫљƉѹљțƩѫѱёѳёѫёѹҁ ѫŶѵљѩѯѹѯѹ>ѷ@ѫŶѫљѹȕџѳљ

 1 >țёѷѫŶѯѹѩѫŶѷљѳѯ!!ѫ@ѷѯѯѹ BB ‫ ۅ‬2 >їљѫљѹѓҁѥљțѯѹѫљѱ@ѯѹѯǼѫ BB ‫ ۅ‬3 ѽёѯѵ Wurst2 (frg. E20 Ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬4 љѥƉҁѷљ KW; >țҁљ@ѳҁƉѷƉѫƉ љȝ>ҁѩѫŶ@љѥƉҁѷљ BB ‫ ۅ‬5 ѫ>ѵё ѱ@љƉѱƩѫƩёWurst4, but traces of љ are not visible, and there appear to be only 3 spaces between ѫ and ѱƩѫƩё‫ ۅ‬6 >ѫѷё@ѷѫŶKW, syncopation for >ѫŶѷё@ѷљѷƩѫ‫ ۅ‬16 Although the scribe set the initial ȝ in ekthesis, the line contains only 17 characters, the average for this page. He inscribed ȡ broader than usual (like a Greek cross) so that it occupies nearly two character spaces. ‫ ۅ‬17 ѵѣѯѯѹ, variant of ѵѣѯѹ (Crum 368a), the only instance of this spelling in the tractate; ѵѣѯѹ KW, BB; љѹљ!ȝҁѥ Nagel1

Appendix A: Text and Translation

54 1

5

10

15

20

25

[. . .] [. . .] light [. . . the] chaos [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] spirit within you (pl.) which you (pl.) have made to dwell in this flesh in the races of angels. But God had knowledge brought to Adam and those with him so that the kings of chaos and the underworld might not rule over them.” Then Judas said to Jesus, “So what will those races do?” And Jesus said, “Truly I say to you (pl.), the stars are coming to fulfillment over all of these. And when Saklas fulfills the times allotted to him, their first star will bring the races and the things mentioned (before) shall be brought to fulfillment: then they will fornicate in my name, and they will kill their children,

179

180

 1

5

10

15

20  25  

The Gospel of Judas

ѫƩљ ёѹҁѫƉ>– @ѡѯѹR  ёѹҁѫƉ>– @ѯѹ >@џƉѹƉ>– @ѯѹѵ ѫƉ>– @ёѣ ҁѫљѹƉљѣѫљѫљѹѕљѫƉ>љёљ@ѹƉѱё ѳѣѵѷёѩѩѯѯѹѫŶѵёѥѧё>ѵёѹ@ҁ ѩѫŶѫŶѵҁѵȗѫџѹѫŶȟѣѱƉ>@ѳƉёџѧ љȗљѣѫљѫŶѷѩѫѷѵѫѯѯƉ>ѹѵ@ѩƉѻѹ ѧџѩѱ>ѣƩџƩѧ@љƉѓѯ>ѧț@ѫƉ>@ѫŶ ѵљѳŶ>ț@ѩțёѧѫŶѵёѥѧё>ѫŶȟѣѫŶѕљѫ@љёƉ ѷƉџƉѳƉѯƉѹƉљƉѹƉѳƉ>ѫ@ѯƉѓƉљƉ>ț@ѫƉѱёƉѳƉёѫ ёѹҁ^ёѹҁ`ȗѫёѳƉљƉ>ѳѯѫȟѣ@ѱƉљѥѵѣѹR  љȝѫŶѱѩљƩțѩѫƩѷ>ȕѯѩ@ѷљѫёѣҁŶ ѩƉѫƉŶѫŶѵҁѵїљёȗƉ>ѵҁѓ@љƉѫŶȟѣǼƩџƩѵ ѱљȝёȗѫŶƉ>ȟѣǼѯѹїёѵ@ȝљѱѵёț љѷѓ>љѯѹѥѵҁѓљѫѵҁǼ@ёȗѯѹҁ ȕѓŶѫŶƉ>ȟѣǼџƩѵѱљȝёȗȝ@љљљѣѵҁ ѓљѫŶ>ѵҁѥё@ƉѫƉёƉ>ѧѧ@ёƉѫƉѵƉё>ѷ@љѱƉѧƉё >ѫ@џƉѫƉѫƉѵƉѣƉѯƉѹȝƉ>љ@ѱƉљљѣѵѯѯѹѫŶ ѵѣѯѹѱѧёѫёѩƩѫѱљљѣȡѯѹѩŶѱѯ ѧљѩѣѵѷџѵёѹҁѫёǼѷџѳѯѹѵљ ѫёѷёѥѯѩƩѫѫљѹѥѷѣѵѩё ǼѯѹїёѵїљѱљȝёȗѫŶǼџƩѵȝљțƩѣљѹ ѫёѳѯѹѫŶȟѣѫљѫŶѷёѹȝҁѥƩѩ! țƉƩѩѱљѥѳёѫvacat (± 10 spaces) ѱљȝёȗѫŶȟѣǼџƩѵȝљёѧџѡҁѵȡ ȝҁѩѩѯ>ѵѫёѥ@ȝљѱљљѣȝҁѥƩѩ

 1 ѫƉ>ѵљ KW ‫ ۅ‬4 ѫƉѥƉ>@ѫƉёѣ Wurst4 | 9 ѱ>ѣƩџƩѧ@ Wurst4; traces of iota and lambda are visible but may fit other letters. ‫ ۅ‬10 >ț@ѩŶț ёѧѫŶѵёѥѧёѵƉ Wurst3 (frgs. I2, C29, H34, C4 ĺ), but the final ѵ is obscure; >ѫŶȟѣ ѫŶѕљѫ!@љёƉ Wurst4 (cf. ѫŶѕљѫ!љё 54.14); probably ѵёѥѧё>ѫŶȟѣѫŶѕљѫ@љёƉ (cf. 52.25) ‫ ۅ‬11 >ѯѫț@ѫƉѱёƉѳƉёѫ Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬16 >љѷѓљѯѹ ѥѵҁѓљѫѵҁѫ@ KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬18 ѓљѫŶ>ѵҁѷ@ѫƉ ёƉ>ѫёѧ@ѧƉёƉ Wurst4. I read the first trace after the second lacuna as the final ё in ёѧѧƉё and reconstruct backward from there; this requires about a half-space between ѥ and ё (whereas Wurst postulates a dicolon between ѫ and ё). ‫ ۅ‬27 [ѫёѥ], cf. 56.12; or [ѫџѷѫŶ], cf. 56.9

Appendix A: Text and Translation

55 1

5

10

15

20

25

and [. . .] wickedness, and [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] realms, bringing their races and offering them to Sakla[s. And] afterward, [. .]rael will come, bringing the twelve tribes of [Israel] from […]. And all the [races] will serve Saklas while sinning in my name. And your star will [rule] over the thirteenth realm.” Afterwards Jesus [laughed]. [Judas] said, “Teacher, why [are you laughing at me]?” [Jesus] responded [saying], “I am not laughing [at you, but] at the straying of the stars. For these six stars go astray with these five warriors, and all of them will perish with their creations.” And Judas said to Jesus, “Well then, what will those who were baptized in your name do?” Jesus said, “Truly I say [to you], this baptism

181

182

 1

5

10  15

20

25 

The Gospel of Judas

ѫƩѵ ѫŶѷƉ>ёѹȝѣѩѩѯȗțѫŶ@ѱёѳёѫ țŶ>– @ѩџ!! >– @>@ ѷƉ>– @ȗƉѫƉёƉ ȗҁƉ>ѷ@љƉљѓѯѧѫŶѷѕљѫƉљёѷџѳƩѵ ѫёƩїƉƩ>ƩёƩ@ѩŶѱѳѩѩѥёƩțѱљѷѳŶ ѻѯ>ѳљѣ@ѩŶѩѯǼѳёѵѷљѵљѫёѳŶ ѓёƉ>ѵёѫ@ѣƉѵљѩŶѩѯȗțёѩџѫ ȡƉ>ȝҁѩ@ѩƉѯѵѫџѷѫŶȝљѩѫŶ ѧƉ>ё@ѯѹƉ>љѫ@ȟƉѣƉȝƉѫƉ>ѳ@ҁƉѩƉљƉљƉȕƉ>ё@ȗƉ ѩѯѹ>ѫёȝ@ҁƉѓƉљљѳѯǼvacat (± 3 spaces) ёѧџѡҁѵƉ>ȡȝ@ҁƉѩѩѯŪѵũѫёѥźǼѯѹ їёȝљѫƉ>љѷѷ@ёƉѧљѡѹѵѣёљƉțƉƩѳƉƩёǼŶƉ ѫѵёѥѧ>ёѵ@ѯƉѹѷџѳѹR  ȝљѫț>– @ ȝѫŶѱ>– @ ѳѯѹ>@>– @ țҁѓѫƉѣѩљƉ>ѹț@ѯѯѹѫѷѯѥƉ їљѥѫёѳŶțѯѹѯљѳѯѯѹѷџ ѳѯѹѱѳҁѩљѕёѳљѷѳŶѻѯ ѳљѣѩƩѩѯљѣvacѥѫёѳѡѹѵѣёѵљ ѩѩѯȗџїџёѱљѥѷёѱȝѣѵљ ёѹҁѱљѥȟҁѫƩѷźёȗѩѯѹț ёѹҁѱљѥѵѣѯѹёȗȝҁѓљёѹ ҁѱљѥțџѷŶёƉ>ȗѥҁ@ѷљ!!!!!!



 10 Wurst3 (fragments I2, C29, H34, C4 Ĺ) ‫ ۅ‬11 >ѫёѳŶѫ@ѯƉѓƉљ Wurst4; the ink traces before ѓ resembles ҁ, though a small ѯ preceded by a trace of ѫis not impossible (cf. the size of ѯ later in the line). ‫ ۅ‬14 Perhaps ѵёѥѧ>ёѵѵљѫёѩ@ѯѹ, Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬15 ȝљѫț>џѷȗ@ Turner ‫ ۅ‬18 љƉ>ѹ@țƉѯѯѹ KW; љƉ>ѹț@ѯѯѹ BB. Although no trace of ț can be seen on current ms photographs, KW comment that it is visible on an older photograph supplied by Charles Hedrick. The trace before the lacuna has more of a straight vertical left-hand side than the usual rounded curve of љ though љ is not impossible. ‫ ۅ‬25 Only the uppermost tip of the ё is visible, and there are 3–4 spaces in the lacuna; ёƉ>ȗёѩёț@ѷƉљ KW, BB, but there is not enough space; ёƉ>ȗѵҁ@ѷљ Nagel2; ёƉ>ȗțѣ@ѷƉљ SR; ёƉ>ȗѵѯѓ@ѷљ Turner

Appendix A: Text and Translation

56 1

5

10

15

20

25

[which they received in] my name [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] it will wipe out the entire race of earthly Adam. Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured. Yet indeed I [say] to you (pl.), no hand of a dying mortal [will fall] upon me. “Truly I say to you, Judas, that those who offer sacrifice to Saklas [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] every [wicked] thing. But you yourself will do more than all of them; for the person who bears me, you shall sacrifice him. Already your horn is raised, your anger is kindled, your star has passed over, and your heart has [strayed].

183

184

 1

5

10

15 

20  25

The Gospel of Judas

ѫƩ>ѝŶ@ ёѧџѡ>ҁѵȡȝҁѩŶѩѯѵѫёѥȝљ@ѫƉљƉѥƉ țƩёљѯƉ>– @ҁ ѱƉ>– @љ ѥ>ѫљѡѳ@ѯ ѫѯѵѩŶѱёѣҁѫёƉѹƉȟƉҁƉ>ѷѱёѹ@ҁ ѫљѳҁѯѹёѹѳŶȟҁѓёѹƉ>ҁ@ѫƉѕљ ѫљёѫŶѫŶёѕѕљѧѯѵёѹёȕƉ>ё@țѯѩ! ёѹҁѩѱљѡѯѯѹѫѷёƉ>ѹȝ@ѯѯѹ >@љƉѹƉȗƉҁƉѷƉ>љёѹҁ@ѱƩёƩѳ >ѽƩҁƩѫ@љƉȗȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ>ёѹ@ҁƉѷѯ ѷљȗѫёȝѣѵљѫŶȟѣѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ ѫѷѫѯȟѫŶѕљѫљёѫŶƉ>ё@їƉёѩȝљ țƩёѷљțƩџѫŶѷѱљѩѫŶƉ>ѱ@ѥƉёțѩѫŶѫ ёƉѕѕљѧѯѵѵƩȕѯѯ>ѱ@ѫƉȟѣѷѕљѫљ ёƉљѷƩѩƩѩёѹљѓѯѧțѣѷƉѫƉѫёѣҁѫ љѣѵțџџѷљёѹȝљțҁƉ>ѓ@ѫƉѣѩљѳѯѥ ȗѣљѣёѷѥљțѳёљѣѫѕƉ>ѫ@ёƉѹљѷȟџ ѱѣёѹҁѱѯѹѯǼѫљѷѫƉțџѷѵŶ ёѹҁѫŶѵѣѯѹљѷѥҁѷљљѳѯѵ ёѹҁѱѵѣѯѹљѷѯѩŶѱѳѯџѕѯѹ ѩљѫѯѵѫŶѷѯȗѱљѱљѥƉѵѣѯѹ! ǼѯѹїёѵїљёȗȗѣёѷƩȗљțƩѳёљѣ! ёȗѫёѹљѷȟџѱљѫŶѯѹѯѣѫёѹ ҁёȗȗҁѥљțƩѯѹѫљѳѯѵѫљ ѷёțљѳёѷѯѹțƩѣѱљѵџѷёѹ ѵҁѷѩљѹѵѩџљѵѫџѹљѓѯѧ țƩѫѷȟџѱљƉљƉ>ѵ@ȝƉҁƉѩѩѯѵ!

  2 Perhaps țƩёљѯƉ>ѹѫŶțѯѯѹёѹȕҁѱљёѹ@ҁ; >ѹѫŶțѯѯѹѫљѩŶѱљѣѩёёѹ@ҁ BB ‫ ۅ‬3 >ȕ@ҁƉѱљ KW, BB; the traces may also fit ѯ and ѫ ‫ ۅ‬5 ёƉѹƉ>@ Wurst4; the ink traces after ѹfit the bottom of ȟƉҁƉ>@ (compare the shape of ȟҁ on line 6) ‫ ۅ‬6 >@ѩƉљ KW, BB ‫ ۅ‬9 Perhaps >țѩŶ ѱ@ѥƉёƉțƉ; for љƉѹƉȗƉҁƉѷƉ>љtraces of ѹ, the tops of ȗҁ, and the left hortizontal stroke of ѷare legible; only 3 spaces follow, so that љѓѯѧ is ruled out (cf. 56.5, 57.10). ‫ ۅ‬10 љȗљ!ȗҁѷљ Nagel1, SR ‫ ۅ‬11 ѱƉѷƉ>ѹ@ѱѯѵ KW, BB, but there is no trace of ѷ, and only the left-hand side of ѱ is visible before the lacuna. ‫ ۅ‬19 The first ѷ in љѷѥҁѷљ resembles ѹ, though the latter usually has a deeper concave.

Appendix A: Text and Translation

57 1

5

10

15

20

25

“Truly [I say to you (sg.)], your final [. . .] [. . .] [. . . the thrones] of the realm have been [defeated]; the kings have become weak; the races of the angels have mourned; the wickedness they [sowed] [. . .] is obliterated; [and] the ruler is wiped out. [And] then the [fruit] of the great race of Adam shall be exalted, because before heaven and earth and the angels that race exists throughout the realms. Behold, you have been told everything. Raise your eyes; see the cloud, the light within it, and the stars surrounding it. And the leading star, that’s your star.” So Judas raised his eyes; saw the luminous cloud; and he entered it. Then the people standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying

185

186

 

 1

5

10

15

20

25

 

The Gospel of Judas !!!!

ѫџ

!!!!

ȝƉ>љs ѷ@ѫѯȟѫ ѕљƉ>ѫљёs @ҁѫѫŶ ȟѣ>s @ёѹ ҁƉ>@>@љƉѷțѳёѣ ѫŶ>țџѷ@ёѹҁёǼѯѹїёѵѧѯљȗ ѫёѹƉ>љǼ@џƩѵѫŶѷљѹѫѯѹїљёѵ ȕҁƉ>ѱ@љѫŶȟѣѯѹѥёѷёѵѷёѵѣё țƩѫ>Ǽѯ@ѹƉїёǼљțѯƉ>@ >or vac@vac ёѹѥƉѳƉƩѩѳƩѩvac>or vac@ ѫŶȟƉ>ѣ@ѫƉ>љѹё@ѳƉȝѣљѳƉљѹѵȝљѫѷёƉ>ȗ@ ѓҁѥ>љțѯ@ѹƉѫƉљѷѥёѷёѧѹѩёѫƉ ѷљȗѱƉ>ѳѯ@ѵƉљѹѽџƉѫљѯѹѫțѯƉ љѣѫљї>љѩŶ@ѩёѹѫŶѫљѕѳёѩѩёƉ ѷљѹѵљƉ>ѹ@ѱёѳёѷџѳљѣȝљљѹљƉ ёѩёțѷƉ>љ@ѩƉѩѯȗțƩѳёǼțƩѫѷљ! ѱѳѯѵљ>ѹ@ѽƉџѫљѹѳŶțƩѯѷљѕёѳ țџѷȗŶѩƉѱѧёѯѵѱљȝљѫљȗѫŶ ѷѯѯѷƉѯѹѷџѳѯѹțƩҁѵѱѳѯ ѻџѷџƉѵvacёѹҁёѹȡѱљѹѯѹ ѯǼљǼѯƉѹїёѵѱљȝёѹѫёȗ ȝљљѥѳѯѹѫŶѷѯѥѩŶѱљљѣѩё ѫŶѷѯѥѱљѱѩёѡџѷџѵѫŶǼƩѵ ѫŶѷѯȗїљёȗѯѹҁȕѓŶѫёѹ ѥёѷёѱљѹѯѹҁȕљǼѯѹїёѵ їљёȗȝѣѫŶțƩѫțѯѩѫƩѷёȗѱё ѳёїѣїѯѹѩƉ>ѩѯ@ȗƉѫƉёѹ!!!!! !!!!!!!!!>!!!@!!!!!!!!!

ѱљѹёѕƉѕƉљѧѣѯѫ  ѫŶǼѯѹїёѵ

 1 ȝ>љљѣѵțџџѷљѵȕѯѯѱѫŶȟѣѷ@ѫѯȟ SR ‫ ۅ‬2–3 >țѣ@ѥƉҁѫKW, BB; the traces fit the righthand side of ѥ but could be of another character (e.g. ȝ); ѕљƉ>ѫљёёѹҁȗȕѯѯѱțѫŶ ѷљѵțѣ@ѥҁѫѫ_ȟѣ >ёїёѩёѵѩŶѱѯѹѯљǼѫ@65 ‫ ۅ‬4 ҁҕ ёҕ [. . . . . . . . .] їѯ [. .] ѷࢹѳёȧ ] vac ёѹѥƉѳƉѩŶѳѩŶ vac >їљ@.:, Wurst4 ‫ ۅ‬8 љƉțƉѯƉѹƉљƉљҕ Wurst4; perhaps љțѯƉѹƉѫƉљҕ ‫ ۅ‬9 ѫƉŶ [ BB; an ink trace at the begining of the line is faded or obstructed (by tape?) beyond legibility. ‫ ۅ‬10 ѫȟƉѣƉѫƉ>љ@ѹƉёƉѳȝѣљѳљѹѵȝљѫŶѷё>@ KW; they comment that the iota in ѫȟѣ and traces of ѹ and ё are visible on older photographs. The ink trace after ѫȟѣ may fit something other than ѫ; ѫѷё>ȗ@ BB; ѫѷё>ѹ@ is also possible.

Appendix A: Text and Translation 

58 1

5

10

15

20

25

“[. . .] great race [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .].” Then Judas stopped looking at Jesus. Immediately there was a commotion among the Jews [. . .]. Their chief priests murmured because he went into the guest room for his prayer. And there were some scribes plotting to seize him during the prayer; for they feared the people because he (was seen) by all of them as a prophet. So they approached Judas and said to him, “What are you doing here? You are the disciple of Jesus.” And he responded the way they wanted. Judas took some money, and handed him over to them.

The Gospel of Judas

187

Appendix B

Commentary 33.3–6 eight days prior to the three days before he kept Passover: The three days may be based on the chronology of Mark 14:1ff., which narrates a three-day sequence of events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. According to Mark, Judas first visited the chief priests “two days before the Passover” (14:1, 10). After these two days, Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples, is arrested that night, and is crucified on the following morning (the third day). If Judas assumes Mark’s chronology, then its narrative is set in the days just before Judas Iscariot first encounters the chief priests, the story with which it concludes (58.9–26). The construction ѳŶѱёѵѽёliterally translates DzDZǫǧΝǯǶͅDz̾ǵǹǣ, ‘to do Passover,’ as found throughout the LXX and New Testament. Some commentators suggest reading ѳŶѱёѵѽё as a variant of ѳŶѱёѵѽљ(Dz̾ǵǹǧǫǯ), ‘to suffer,’ but the thematic vowel ёnot љ renders this interpretation less plausible.1 Nevertheless, it is quite likely that the author intended a double entendre between Passover (Dz̾ǵǹǣ) and suffering (Dz̾ǵǹǧǫǯ) since the Passover festival and Jesus’ death are interrelated events in the narratives of the canonical Gospels. Similarly, since љѣѳљѳŶalso frequently means “to become,” one may translate “before he became pascha.” In this sense, pascha would not refer to the festival, but to the meal itself, so that Jesus would be identified with the paschal lamb (cf. 1 Cor 5:7; John 1:29, 19:36). 33.10–13 path of righteousness. . . transgression: The two ways of morality is a popular theme in ancient literature: for example, Hesiod, Works

1 John Turner, “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition,” in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, ed. Madeleine Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 187–237, at 229; Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Protagonist, its Composition, and its Community,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April D. DeConick (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 75–94, at 77n9.

Appendix B: Commentary

189

and Days 213–247; Psalms 1:6; Manuel of Disciple (1QS); Didache 1:1; Barnabas 21.2 33.18;21 they would find: The manuscript reads ȕёѥțљ, ‘you (m.s.) would find’. I emend to ȕёѹ!țљ, ‘they would find,’ in order to agree with ѷљѹѩџѷљ, ‘their midst.’ Cf. Peter Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138, at 118: “In narrative Texten des Koptischen wird die 2. Pers. Sing, für die ›unbestimmte Person‹ nicht gebraucht.” 33.20 as a child (ѫŶțƩѳѯѷ): Scholars have not arrived at a consensus as to the meaning of this word. Pierre Cherix and others read it as a metathesized form of țѷѯѳ, ‘necessity, constraint’ (Crum 726b) related to the noun țѳҁѷțѳѯѷ ‘wine press’ (Crum 704b; Kasser, Compléments au dictionnaire copte de Crum, 101), and translate adverbially “when necessary you would find him in their midst.” According to Cherix, “on attendrait plutot en S: țҁѵțѳѯѷљ (de B șѳѯȡ) et non pas ѫțѳѯѷ.”3 As attractive as this solution is, it remains difficult since such a metathesized form of țѷѯѳ is otherwise undocumented. Kasser and Wurst (Crit. Ed. 185) suggest that the term is a Sahidic hapax corresponding to the Bohairic word șѳѯȡ, ‘child’ (cf. Crum 631). One may expect an indefinite article (*ѫŶѯѹțѳѯѷ) though it is not necessary (cf. NHC XIII 49.19–20: љљѣȕѯѯѱѫŶљѣҁѷ“I exist as father”). The primary objection to this reading is that such a Sahidic spelling is undocumented (cf. Cherix). However, the translation ‘child’ is still, in my opinion, the simplest explanation of this hapax. Crum’s lexical entry for șѳѯȡ shows wide variation in spelling, including forms close to that in Judas: Vatican mss. spell it with ѷ (not ȡ) in the plural ѫѣșѳѯѷ; similarly in Old Coptic șѳҁѷ; and vocalization varies (ё instead of ѯ or ҁ) as attested in the Coptic gloss ѱѳёѷ (aspirated rho) over the Demotic p‫ې‬rt.4 Moreover, ț and ș regularly interchange between Coptic dialects (e.g., șѳѯȡ is spelled țѧёȡ in Fayyumic) and in many instances derive from the same Demotic constant ‫( ې‬Crum 629a, 631a). Therefore I find ‘child’ to be 2

See Jack M. Suggs, “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function,” in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, ed. David Aune (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 60–74. 3 P. Cherix, “Évangile de Judas,” http://www.coptica.ch/EvJudas-tra.pdf (accessed on Aug. 3, 2011), 1n3; John Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 208; April DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle, 67, 188n7. 4 Crum 631, with reference to The Demotic Magic Papyrus of London and Leiden, ed. F. Griffith and H. Thompson (London: H. Grevel, 1904), col. XIX, 19.

190

The Gospel of Judas

the most plausible translation, since it does not require emendation or hypothetical metathesis. Kasser and Wurst note the possibility of a corrupted form of țѯѳѷȗŶ, ‘apparition,’ though this is conjectural and unnecessary. Gesine Schenke Robinson reads the manuscript as țѯѳѷȗƉŶ (taking the diple after ѷDVȗ), though this reading is virtually impossible.5 Traditions about Jesus’ appearing as a child are found in other ancient Christian writings. In the Gospel of the Savior, Jesus ambiguously declares to his disciples that “I am in your midst as the little children” (ѫѡљ ѫѣȕџѳљȕџѩ 107:57–60, ed. Hedrick & Mireki). In the Apocryphon of John, Jesus first appears to John as a child (ёѧѯѹ), then as an old man, in order to demonstrate his complex divine nature that spans the heavenly trinity of Father, Mother, and Son. However, there is no indication that Judas uses child imagery for the same purpose: no where else in this Gospel does he appear in other forms, nor does Judas include such a trinitarian theology as found in the Apocryphon of John. For traditions about Jesus appearing to people under different guises, see Origen, in Matthaeum commentariorum series 100 (Migne, PG vol. 13, 1750b–c); and The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC VI, 1). For further discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ appearance as a child in Judas, see Chapter 1. 33.25–26 practicing godliness (ѳŶѕѹѩѫёѝљљѷѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ): The Coptic word ѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ (Crum, 231a) can translate Greek Ǫǧǫ͆Ƕǩȍ (Romans 1:20) and ǧ̡ǵ̀Ǥǧǫǣ(1 Clement 15:1). Cf. 1 Timothy 4:7, “Train yourselves in godliness” (ѕѹѩѫёѝљ ѩѩѯѥ љѷѩѫѷљѹѵљѓџѵ ǥ͈ǮǯǣǨǧ Ǧ̿ ǵǧǣǷǶͅǯ Dzdzͅȍǧ̡ǵ̀Ǥǧǫǣ).6 The syntactic position of ѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ in the partial chiasm љѹțѩѯѯѵ – љѹѵѯѯѹț – ѩѫѷѫѯѹѷљ – љѹѵѯѯѹț – љѹțѩѯѯѵ – љѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣ (sitting – gathered – godliness – gathered – sitting – giving thanks) suggests that it refers to the disciples’ thanksgiving prayer over the bread. 34.1–2 giving thanks (љѹѽёѳѣѵѷѣ): In Judas’s narrative setting, the disciples’ thanksgiving prayer over their bread simply depicts the customary Jewish prayer before a meal (cf. Mark 8:6; Matthew 15:23; John 6:11, 23; 5

Gesine Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 63–98, at 86; cf. Peter Nagel “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138, at 115– 117. 6 See also Peter Nagel, “Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 98 (2007): 213–276, at 261–262; idem, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” 118–119.

Appendix B: Commentary

191

m Berakoth 4–5). However, since the author of Judas wrote in the second century CE, he most likely intended this scene to allude to the Christian rite of the Eucharist, especially those performed by ecclesiastical leaders (see Chapter 2). 34.7–11 you are not doing this by your will (țŶ>ѫѱљ@ѷƉѫѯѹҁƉȕƉ): That the disciples serve their god against their will casts their devotion in terms of ǦǧǫǵǫǦǣǫǮDZǯǡǣ, superstition. According to Plutarch (De superstitione 171ff.), “the atheist thinks there are no gods; the superstitious man wishes there were none, but believes in them against his will (˝Ǭǻǯ).” 34.25–35.1 your god who is within you and his [stars] (ѫ>љȗѵѣѯѹ@): Following a wide-spread Jewish apocalyptic tradition (see note to 37.4–5), Judas associates the stars with wicked angels who lead humanity into sin and error (37.4–5; 40.15–18; 41.5; 42.15–17; 46.1–2; 54.17–18). In Judas’s mythology, these demonic stars work in the service of the hostile creator god, Saklas, whom the disciples worship. The disciples themselves are probably imagined, in some sense, as earthly analogues to astral powers, since as Jesus says later in the dialogue “each of you has his own star” (42.7–8; cf. 55.12–13; see note on 36.1–4).7 35.1 they have become contentious with your souls (ёƉѹёѕёƉѫƉ>ёѥ@ѷѣ>ѩ@ѫƉ ѫљѷѫѿѹѽџ): The source of the disciples’ own contention against Jesus (34.20) is a contentious god who afflicts their souls (probably by means of his astral powers, if the reconstruction ѫ>љȗѵѣѯѹ@ at 34.25 is correct). The notion that people become like the gods they serve is found in other early Christian literature as well. The Letter to Diognetus (2.5) criticizes pagan idolators for becoming like their false gods: “These are what you call gods; these are what you serve; these are what you worship; and in the end, these are what you become like.” Similarly, Heracleon (Commentary on John, frg. 46 [ed. Völker]) says that psychic people are called “children of the devil,” not because the devil begot them, but because they do his works and so “became like him.” 35.10–13 He could stand before him, but not look into his eyes: The fact that Judas cannot look Jesus in the eyes but “turned his face away” high7

See Seonyoung Kim, “The Gospel of Judas and the Stars,” in Gospel of Judas in Context, 293–309; April DeConick, “Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature,” in eadem, ed., Codex Judas Papers, 243–288; Nicola Denzey Lewis, “Fate and the Wandering Stars: The Jewish Apocalyptic Roots of the Gospel of Judas,” in Codex Tchacos Papers, 289–324.

192

The Gospel of Judas

lights both Jesus’ divine glory and Judas’s limited ability to comprehend him (though still greater than the rest of the Twelve). Compare Enoch’s description of God dwelling in the heavenly temple: “No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no flesh could look at him.” Enoch says that when he arrived that the threshold of God’s heavenly throne room, “I kept my face down” (˩ƃǥ͉Ǧ̿ ǶͅDzdz͆ǵǻDz͆ǯǮDZǷǬ̾Ƕǻ˭ǬǷǸDZǯ 1 Enoch 14:21, 24 [ed. Black]). Cf. 1 Enoch 15:1; Exodus 33:20. 35.15–16 I know who you are: Judas’s identification of Jesus echoes the unclean spirit’s identification of him in Mark 1:24 (“I know who you are; you are the holy one of God!”). 35.19 he who sent you: This anonymous masculine figure is likely the invisible Spirit (47.9) or Autogenes, as are Judas’s later references to ‘the Lord’ (40.23), ‘the Father’ (50.14), ‘the Great One’ (53.22) and ‘god’ (53.19, 54.8). 35.25 the kingdom (ѷѩѫѷљѳѯ): It is unclear what the kingdom refers to in the Gospel of Judas since it speaks of a variety of dominions. In some cases ‘kingdom’ may refer to the celestial realms of Autogenes where divine luminaries ‘rule’ (ѳŶљѳѯ 48.5, 13, 18), but in others to the lower realms ruled by the wicked angels and stars (cf. 43.18; 45.26?; 46.13?).8 Jesus also predicts that Judas will rule (ѳŶљѳѯ) over ‘the thirteenth realm’ (55.10), which in other Sethian texts corresponds to the domain controlled by the chief demonic ruler (cf. Holy Book; Zostrianos). Furthermore, Judas speaks of a ‘kingdom’ that Adam received on earth (53.14), which evidently differs from the reign of the demons (54.8–11). When Jesus tells Judas that he will reveal to him the ‘mysteries of the kingdom,’ he may mean all of these. 35.36 not so you may go there: I read the manuscript as ѯѹѽțѣѫёȝљ + III Future (љѥљѓҁѥ љѩёѹ). For similar constructions see 36.2–4 and 54.10. Schenke Robinson (“Relationship,” 87) follows the reading found in Kasser and Wurst’s preliminary transcript (2006), ѯѹѫȟѯѩȝљ + III Future, “it is possible for you to go there.” However, such a construction is unattested in Coptic literature, and the ink traces fit ѯѹѽțѣѫё better (see the textual apparatus).The expected existential construction is ѯѹѫȟѯѩ followed by either a complimentary infinitive introduced with љ (as in the 8 Louis Painchaud, “A Tale of Two Kingdoms: The Mysteries of the basileia in the Gospel of Judas,” unpublished paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA, November 2007.

Appendix B: Commentary

193

Sahidic NT passim) or a conjunctive clause (e.g., NHC II 74.5 ѯѹѫŶȟѯѩ ѩŶѩѯȗѫŶȗȡѷѕѫҁѵѣѵ, “It is possible for it to give knowledge”; cf. NHC II 81.24). 35.27 mourn (ёȕёțѯѩ): Mourning or ‘sighing’ is found in other apocalyptic texts as a reaction to revelation. It expresses the overwhelming effect revelation can cause on its recipient, that is, the world-shattering experience of suddenly learning new realities. In the Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V 66.9–20) Adam and Eve sigh (ёțѯѩ) after three divine emissaries reveal to them knowledge about the eternal realm from which they have fallen. In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC VI, 1), Peter sighs (ёțѯѩ) when he learns how difficult it is to travel to the heavenly city. Here, Judas may sigh not only because he receives revelation about god and the other disciples that challenges what he previously held to be true, but also because someone else will take his place among the Twelve (36.1–2). 36.1–4 there is another who will take your place (љѱљѥѩё) so that the twelve [elements] shall be complete (ȝҁѥљѓѯѧ) in their god: This clearly reflects the story in Acts 1:25, where Matthias is chosen by lot to take Judas’s ‘place’ (ǶDZŲDzDZǯ) among the Twelve. For another echo of Acts, see Judas 38.7–11. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.12.1 [ed. Rousseau-Doutreleau]) uses similar language of filling-up or “completing the number of the twelve apostles” (adimplere duodecim Apostolorum numerum). For the ‘twelve [elements],’ I follow J. van der Vliet’s reconstruction ѫŶѵƉ>ѷѯѣѽѣ@ѯƉѫƉ. Kasser and Wurst reconstruct ѵ>ѓѯѹǼ@, ‘disciples,’ though in every other reference to the disciples Judas uses the Greek word ѩёѡџѷџѵ. If the reconstructionѫŶѵƉ>ѷѯѣѽѣ@ѯƉѫ is correct, then the twelve elements would refer to twelve heavenly powers (undoubtedly the twelve signs of the Zodiac) which in Judas are probably imagined as the astral analogues of the twelve disciples (see similarly Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts of Theodotus 25). Other ancient Jewish and Christian literature identify the elements (ǵǶDZǫǹǧΝǣ) as cosmic rulers and stars. For example, Testament of Solomon 8:1–2: “Then there came seven spirits bound up together hand and foot, fair of form and graceful. When I, Solomon, saw them, I was amazed and asked them, ‘Who are you?’ They replied, ‘We are the stoicheia, the world-rulers of the darkness of this age. Our stars in heaven look small, but we are named like gods.’” Cf. Testament of Solomon 18:1; Galatians 4:3, 9; Colossians 2:8, 20; Excerpts of Theodotus 81.3. In the Gospel of Judas, the fact that someone else must take Judas’s place “so that the twelve [elements] shall be complete in their god” associ-

194

The Gospel of Judas

ates the twelve disciples with twelve heavenly counterparts. Such an association is found elsewhere in this Gospel: Jesus tells his disciples that “each of you has his own star,” and refers to Judas’s star on multiple occasions. The idea may be that the Twelve must be preserved in order to maintain the proper order of the cosmos ruled by the disciples’ god. Just as the number of the twelve disciples must be restored on earth by a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:16–26), so the twelve signs of the Zodiac must be completed in the heavens. 36.6 when will you tell me (љѥёȝљ : a variant spelling of the II Future љѥѫёȝљ. The ѫ of the future conjugation ѫё- sometimes elides in subAchmimich dialects. See Till, Koptische Dialektgrammatik §252; Peter Nagel, “Lycopolitan,” in Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, 157. 36.21 Now (ѷљѫѯѹ): the Crit. Ed. translates it with the preceding sentence: “not now in these realms.” I read it as the beginning of a new sentence with ёѹҁ (as is also suggested by the preceding dicolon). The syntax ѷљѫѯѹїљȟљѯѫ appears frequently in the Sahidic NT. For ѷљѫѯѹ ёѹҁ, see NHC I 67.6; NHC II 10.26; BG 39.4. 36.26 strong (ȝѯѯѳ): The description of the holy race as ‘strong’ is also found in the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, which refers to “the great, incorruptible, immovable race of the great strong people (ѫѣѫѯȟ ѫŶѳҁѩљѫŶȝҁҁѳљ) of the great Seth” (NHC III 59.12–15). 37.2–8 no one born of this realm will see that race. . . nor will any mortal human offspring be able to join it (љѣѫѩŶѩёѵ): The sense of љѣ with ѩѫŶis ambiguous, and Crum (70–73) has no entry for it. It probably translates ǵǷǯ̀dzǹǧǵǪǣǫ, ‘to accompany, assemble together, have dealings with, unite with, join.’ Ancient Jewish and Christian literature frequently restrict ordinary mortals from entering heaven with the angels and holy race without first undergoing spiritual rebirth, shedding their mortal flesh, and/or transforming into an angelic body. See note to 45.14–17. 37.4–5 angelic army of the stars: Ancient Jews and Christians frequently identified angels with stars and spoke of them as an army, the ‘heavenly host,’ organized like human armies with chiefs over ranks of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. See for example Isaiah 14:12–14; Daniel 8:9– 11; Revelation 1:20, 9:1. The tradition is at least as old as the apocalyptic books included in 1 Enoch. The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 18:13–16; cf. 21:5) describes a prison for “the stars and the hosts of heaven” who transgressed; 20:4 names Reuel as a punitive angel for the wayward stars

Appendix B: Commentary

195

(cf. 23:4). The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 69:3) speaks of the divisions of the angelic host, the chiefs, the leaders of hundreds, fifties, and tens. The Book of the Luminaries (1 Enoch 72–82) speaks of the angelic rulers of the stars as ‘leaders’ and ‘heads of the thousands’ (72:1, 79:6); 75:1–3 speaks of “the leaders of the heads of the thousands who are over all the creation and over all the stars”; 80:6 predicts that “many heads of the stars will stray from the command and will change their ways and actions” by not appearing at their appointed times; and 82:9–20 provides the names of the angelic chiefs of the stars. The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90, esp. 85:1–3) describes the leader of the apostate angels as a star who fell from heaven, after whom many more stars followed. Philo, too, describes the angels as an army (ǵǶdzǣǶ͆ȍ Conf. 34, 174; Sacr. 2, 5) following Plato’s description of the heavenly daimones (Phaedrus 246e ff.; cf. H. Wolfson, Philo, vol. 1, 373–374). Judas’s idea that no angelic army will rule over the holy race may relate to the tradition that God appointed “angels of the nations” to rule over the various kingdoms of the earth (cf. Deut 32:8 LXX; Jubilees 15:31–32; ben Sira 17:17; Daniel 10:13, 12:1). While each human kingdom has its own angelic ruler, the holy race is a “kingless race” (53.24). 37.15–16 [the realms] in which you are kings: For the disciples as rulers see Matthew 19:28: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you that you who follow me in the regeneration when the Son of Man sits upon the throne of his glory, you too shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”; cf. Testament of Judah 25:1. By the early third century, Christian bishops could be described as sitting on the “thrones of the Apostles” (cathedrae apostolorum); see Tertullian, De praescriptione 36.1; and the Muratorian Canon’s reference to Pious sitting on the episcopal ‘throne’ in Rome. 37.25–26 Why [. . .] you concealed yourselves? (љѷѓљѯѹѫŶѷё>@_> @ёѷѫŶțёѱźѷџѹѷƉ>ѫŶ@): Instead of reading ѫѷё as a II Perfect, Peter Nagel (“zwei Jahre später,” 119–121) proposes the reconstruction љѷѓљ ѯѹ ѫѷё>ѯѹѫ@ “Why [then] . . .”, as a variant spelling of ѫѷѯѯѹѫ, ѫѷёѹѫ (Crum 232a). As Nagel notes, second tense conjugations do not ordinarily follow the interrogative љѷѓљѯѹ. Because the word appears nowhere else in the Codex, it is difficult to confirm or disconfirm that the scribe would have spelled it this way. The following reference to the disciples concealing themselves remains unclear due to the lacuna.

196

The Gospel of Judas

38.9–10 [until] the priests [came out and received] the offerings (ȕƉ>ёѫѷѯѹљѣ љѓ@ѯƉѧ ѫŶңѣ ѫŶѯѹџџѓ _ >ѫŶѵљȝѣ љțѯѹѫ ѫŶ@ѫƉȕѩŶȕљ): I follow Nagel’s reconstruction, which fits the length of the lacunae better than Kasser and Wurst’s ȕ>ёѫѷѯѹȝҁѥљѓ@ѯѧ, “until the priests [finished presenting] the offerings.” I understand ȝѣљțѯѹѫ as ‘receive’ or ‘take in’ the offerings rather than ‘present’ them. According to Crum 750b, ȝѣљțѯѹѫ translates ǧ̅ǵ̾ǥǧǫǯ (John 18:16) and ǵǷǯ̾ǥǧǫǯ (Matt 22:10), though DzdzDZǵǸ̀dzǧǫǯ is also attested (Lev 10:1). The idea seems to be that the priests come out of the temple and receive the offerings from the devoted crowd. These offerings are most likely to be identified with “the animals brought as sacrifices” to which Jesus refers on the following page (39.25– 26). 38.7–11 devoted . . . devotion (ѱѳѯѵѥёѳѷљѳљѣ, DzdzDZǵǬǣdzǶǧdzǧΝǯ): The language echoes the devotion of the apostles in the Jerusalem temple after Jesus’ ascension in Acts (2:46). Acts uses the same verb to narrate how after Pentecost the twelve apostles “continued in devotion with one accord in the temple” (DzdzDZǵǬǣdzǶǧdzDZάǯǶǧǴ̖ǮDZǪǷǮǣǦͅǯ˩ǯǶκ̆ǧdzκ). For another allusion to Acts, see Judas 36.1–2. 38.12–13 of what sort are [. . .]? (țѫŶёȕѩŶѩѣ_ѫљѫљƉ>@ : The text should probably be reconstructed ѩѩѣ>ѫљѫљѫѯѹџџѓ@), “of what sort are [the priests]?” (cf. ѫѯѹџџѓ38.5). Less likely is ѩѩѣ>ѫљѫљѫѳҁѩљ@‘[the men]’ which could refer either to the twelve priests exclusively (the ѳҁѩљ in 38.4), or to the devoted ‘crowd’ (ѩџџȕљ in 38.6), or the priests and the crowd altogether. The plural copula ѫљ prohibits the reconstruction [ѱѩџџȕљ@. 38.14–15 some fast for two weeks (љѹ_ѫџѵѷƉ>љѹљѫŶțљѓ@їѯѩёѵѵѫŶѷљ): Classical authors sometimes associated fasting, or more generally ‘abstaining’ (from sex, food, drink), with illicit cult activity, and Judas appears to be drawing from this discourse in order to slander the twelve disciples’ cult practices. Suspicious forms of fasting are included among the accusations made against Christians by Fronto in Minucius Felix’s Octavius 8.4. Plutarch (De defectu oraculorum 416d–417b) includes fasting among the various practices which superstitious people perform in service of daimones. Livy refers to ten days of ceremonial abstinence (castimonia) which a neophyte of the subversive Bacchanalian cult had to observe before initiation (History 39.9.4). Criticism of other people’s fasting practices appears frequently in Christian texts. The Didache (8:1) warns its readers not to fast with the hypocrites, “for they fast on Monday and Thursday; but you should fast on

Appendix B: Commentary

197

Wednesday and Friday.” Ptolemy (Letter to Flora 5.13) promotes spiritual fasting, that is, a fast from sin, over physical fasting, though he admits that the latter can have benefit “if it is engaged in reasonably,” not in imitation of others or because of special days appointed for fasting. Luke (18:12) highlights the arrogance of a Pharisee who thanks god that he is not like the common people because he fasts “twice a week” (Ǧ̓ǴǶDZάǵǣǤǤ̾ǶDZǷ). Judas’s reference to fasting “for two weeks” may be an adaptation (or confused translation) of the Lukan passage, thus likening the disciples’ fasting to the arrogant Pharisee. It fits nicely alongside the charge that the priests commit all their atrocities while “praising and acting humbly toward one another,” implying a false humility. The criticism need not be understood as a wholesale rejection of fasting, but of a particular way or duration of fasting that the author deemed inappropriate. 38.16–18 others sacrifice their very own children, and others their wives: Human sacrifice, especially child sacrifice, was a mark of barbarism in the ancient Mediterranean world, and the concept was frequently used by pagans and Jews alike to slander suspicious foreigners and other perceived threats to the ‘civilized’ social order.9 Polemical references to people sacrificing their children to false gods appear throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Leviticus 18:21; 20:2–5; 2 Kings 17:16–18; 23:10; Psalms 106:37–38; Jeremiah 32:35).10 The charge was also one of the most frequent accusations that the Romans leveled against Christians.11 For further discussion, see Chapter 2 and note on 38.20–23. 38.18–19 praising and behaving with humility toward one another (љѹ ѵѩѯѹёѹҁљѹѡƩѓѓѣџѹѫŶѫŶљѹљѳџѹ): The pronoun ѫљѹљѳџѹ, ‘each other,’ may extend to the verb ѵѩѯѹ as well, so that one is to understand “while praising (each other) and behaving with humility toward one another.” The idea that the priests praise each other while engaged in all kinds of sinful acts would thus reflect a trope in ancient Jewish literature which criticizes people who not only do evil but also “applaud (ǵǷǯ ǧǷǦDZǬDZάǵǫǯ) others” who do the same (Romans 1:32; Testament of Asher 6:2). 9

J. Rives, “Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995): 65–85. 10 Ed Noort, “Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel: Status Quaestiones,” in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Peeters, 2007), 103–125. 11 See Rives, “Human Sacrifice”; F. J. Dölger, “‘Sacramentum infanticidii’: Die Schlachtung eines Kindes und der Genuss seines Fleisches und Blutes als vermeintlicher Einweihungsakt im ältesten Christentum,” Antike und Christentum: Kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Münster: Aschendoffsche Verlag, 1934), 188–228.

198

The Gospel of Judas

Painchaud (“Polemical Aspects,” 176) interprets ѡѓƩѓѣџѹѫŶѫŶљѹљѳџѹ (= ǶǣDzǧǫǯDZάǯ [Crum 457b ff.]) as a ritual of ‘mutual abasement,’ echoing Leviticus’s prescription that on the Day of Atonement “you shall humble your souls” (ǶǣDzǧǫǯ͊ǵǧǶǧǶ̽ȍǺǷǹ̽ȍ23:27, 29, 32; cf. 16:29, 31). Since in the present context such humility is associated with a litany of sins, it is probably intended to convey a vain humility. 38.20–23 some sleep with men, others murder, while others commit many sins and crimes: This battery of immoralities – human sacrifice (see note on 38.16–18), homosexuality, murder, and generic ‘sins and crimes’ – rings of stock polemic that ancients frequently employed to slander their enemies, especially foreign cults and ethnicities. Jews frequently characterized the vices of ‘the nations’ in similar terms. The Jewish Sibylline Oracles 3.762–765 charges Greeks with a similar list of sins, including idolatry, infanticide, and homosexuality (cf. 3.185; pederasty at 3.596. In Romans 1:24–32, Paul characterizes pagans with a vice list including homosexuality, murder, wickedness, and praising others who practice such things. In the Apocalypse of Abraham (24–25; cf. 21:1; 22:2; 30:5), Abraham sees a vision of sinners and vices, including murder, fornication, homosexuality, defilement, theft, desire, idolatry, and an altar upon which boys are slaughtered. Romans slandered their opponents with similar accusations. Livy reports that when the Romans eagerly eradicated the dreaded Baccanalians from the city in 186 B.C.E., they feared that the cult was practicing all sorts of horrible vices, including secret night time orgies (39.8.4, 12.4), promiscuous sex, perjured wills and seals (8.7), debauchery and murder (stupra et caedes 39.8.9, 18.4), ritual abstinence for ten days (decem dierum castimonia 39.9.4), human sacrifices (39.10.7, 13.11), disgraceful obscenities (39.10.8, 11.7), homosexual acts (plura virorum inter sese quam feminarum esse stupra 39.13.10), and every sort of crime, evil, lust and madness (39.13.10, 16.2–5, 17.7).12 39.1–3 as they are engaged in all their sacrificial acts, that [altar] is filled up (ёƉѹƉҁљƉѹƉ>ț@ѫŶ ѫŶ>љ@țƉѓџѯѹљѷџѳѯѹѩŶѱљѹȕҁƉҁƉѷ>љ@ȕƉ>ё@ȗƉѩѯѹțŶ ѫȟѣѱƉљѡѹѵ>ѣёѷџѳѣѯѫљѷѩŶ@ѩƉёƉѹ): I translate ȕҁҁѷ adjectivally as ‘sacrificial,’ though a more literally translation would be “all the acts of their sacrifice.” As Nagel (“zwei Jahre später,” 121–125) observes, the Coptic text includes two double entendres: (i) ȕҁҁѷ means both ‘sacrifice’ and ‘deficiency’ (“all the acts of their sacrifice/deficiency”); and (ii) ѩѯѹț means both ‘to be filled’ and ‘to burn’ (“that [altar] is filled up/burns”). Since this pair of seemingly deliberate double meanings could not have 12

Livy, Histories 39.8–18, trans. E.T. Sage (LCL 313).

Appendix B: Commentary

199

existed in the Greek Vorlage, they imply playful innovation on the part of the Coptic translator. 39.12–15 my name was written on this [house] of the races of the stars by the human races: This ambiguous passage likely signifies that a temple of the stars was dedicated to Jesus. In antiquity it was common to inscribe the name of the god to whom a temple belonged on a dedicatory inscription outside the temple. In his satire A True Story, Lucian thus recognizes the god to whom a temple was dedicated: “I had not yet gone five stades when I discovered a temple of Poseidon, as the inscription (˶˩DzǫǥdzǣǸǠ) made clear” (1.32); and there was “a temple of Galateia that the Nereid had been built . . . as the inscription (Ƕͅ˩DzǡǥdzǣǮǮǣ) made clear” (2.3). In the Roman imperial period, an emperor’s name was often inscribed on an altar, statue, or temple dedicated to him.13 That the human races wrote Jesus’ name on “this [house] of the races of the stars” signifies that while they blindly worship in the name of Jesus, they serve astral powers, the fallen angels, to whom their temple and sacrifices truly belong (cf. 4.1–6). Justin Martyr similarly accuses Christian heretics of misusing the name of Christ: “These men call themselves Christians in much the same way as some Gentiles engrave the name of God (Ƕͅ ̙ǯDZǮǣ ǶDZά ǪǧDZά ˩DzǫǥdzǞǸDZǷǵǫ) upon their statues, and then indulge in every kind of wicked and atheistic rite” (Dialogue with Trypho 35.6, trans. Falls). 39.20–22 That (altar) is the god you serve: Some scholars have interpreted Paul’s reference to the altar (ǪǷǵǫǣǵǶ͂dzǫDZǯ) in 1 Corinthians 10:18 as a circumlocution for the God of Israel (“Consider the people of Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?”). See Hugo Grossmann, “Ǿ ȀȅǿȃŸȃǿǹ ȉŸȃ ǻǹǿȂȅȃǿȅȃ,” in ZNW 20 (1921): 224–230, and the critical remarks by Wendell Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 184–186. 39.25–40.3 the animals brought forth are the sacrifices you saw – these are the crowd you lead astray. Over that altar [your minister] shall stand ѫŶѷƩѓѫѯѯѹљ љѷѯѹљѣѫљ ѩŶѩѯѯѹ љțѯѹѫ ѫŶѡѹѵѣё ѫŶѷёѷљѷѫŶѫёѹ љѳѯ ѯѹ ѫљ  љѷљ ѱѩџџȕљ ѱљ љѷљѷѫŶѱѧёѫё ѩŶѩѯȗ љȝѫŶ ѱ>љ@ѡѹ>ѵѣ ёƉѵƉѷџѳƉѣѯѫƉ љѷѩŶƉ>ѩё@ѹƉ >ȗѫ@ёƉ>ҁ@țƉљѳёѷƩȗ ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣ ѱљѷѫŶїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ: The complicated syntax in 39.25–28 (two relative clauses and two copulas) prohibits a smoother translation (e.g., “the animals you saw brought as sac13 See Duncan Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (Leiden: Brill, 2004), vol. 3.3, 289–303; Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 29–49.

200

The Gospel of Judas

rifices, these are the crowd you lead astray. . .”). The disciples did not report seeing animals in their vision, and Jesus now appears to be clarifying that the sacrifices they saw (cf. ȕѩŶȕљ, ‘offerings’in 38.10, 39.19) are specifically animal sacrifices. He then interprets these as the crowd whom the disciples lead astray. An additional problem arises from the fact that one can parse 39.28– 40.3 in at least two different ways: (i) these are the crowd you lead astray upon that altar. [Your minister] shall stand. . .; or (ii) these are the crowd you lead astray. Over that altar [your minister] shall stand. . . In the second translation, љȝѫŶѱ>љ@ѡѹ>ѵѣ@ёƉѵƉѷџѳƉѣѯѫƉbegins a new sentence as an extraposited prepositional phrase.14 The Crit. Ed. follows the first translation choice; Pierre Cherix (“Évangile de Judas,” 4) and April DeConick (Thirteenth Apostle, 73) follow the second. If one translates the passage as the crowd you lead astray upon that altar, then one could see a veiled criticism of Christians who seek and/or promote martyrdom by interpreting it as sacrifice to god. Ignatius, for example, in his earnest desire for martyrdom, wants to be poured out as a libation “while there is still an altar at hand” (Romans 2:2). More generally, however, the accusation may simply mean that the disciples lead people astray in their devotion to the altar, which Jesus has just identified with the false god whom they serve (39.20–22). I follow Cherix and DeConick, and parse the text according to the second option: Over that altar [your minister] shall stand, and this is the way he shall use my name. The passage seems indented to echo the cult activity witnessed in the disciples’ vision, where they see themselves “standing [over] the altar” (ҁțљѳƉ>ёѷѯѹљȝ@ѫŶѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџѳѣѯ>ѫ@) and invoking the name of Jesus (38.24–26; 39.8–11). Hence this ‘minister’ represents the future continuation of the apostolic cult; like the twelve disciples, he stands over the altar and invokes Jesus’ name. 40.2–3 [your minister] shall stand (ѫŶƉŶңƉ>ѣ ѱљѷѫŶїѣёѥѯ@ѫƉѯѵ): Scholars have suggested various reconstructions for this lacuna. See Chapter 2, section E.I for discussion; cf. Nagel, “zwei Jahre später,” 125–126. 40.8, 10 present (ѱёѳѣѵѷё DzǣdzǫǵǶ̾ǯǣǫ): See Chapter 2, section E.II for discussion. 40.10–11 [fornicators] (ѫƉ>ѳљȗѱ@ѯƉѳƉѫƉ>љ@ѹƉ>љ@) and those who murder children (ѫŶѫѳљȗțёѷѓȕ>џѳ@љ): cf. Judas 54.24–26. Both are typical stock polemics found in ancient vice lists intended to epitomize the most de14

See Layton, Coptic Grammar §456 on adverbial premodifiers.

Appendix B: Commentary

201

graded human behaviors. See, for example, the Didache 5 (DzDZdzǯǧΝǣǫ ǸDZǯǧΝȍǶ̀Ǭǯǻǯ) and 2:2 (DZ̡Ǧ̿ǥǧǯǯǩǪ̿ǯ˙DzDZǬǶǧǯǧΝȍ).  40.11–13 and yet another, those who sleep with men (and) with abstainers (ѥёѣѯѹƉёїљѫŶѫѳљȗƉѫŶѥѯѥѷљѩѫŶțѯѯ>ѹ@ѷƉѩѫŶѫљѷѫџѵѷљѹљƉ): The Coptic syntax is ambiguous. The verb ѱёѳѣѵѷё has been elided by brachylogy, but the question is how to understand the relationship of ѩѫŶ ѫљѷѫџѵѷљѹљ to the rest of the sentence: is it the direct object of ѱёѳѣѵѷё or ƉѫŶѥѯѥѷљ" In Judas, ѱёѳѣѵѷё consistently marks direct objects with ѫŶ (40.8–10; 55.5–6), while ѫŶѥѯѷѥ marks objects with ѩŶѫŶ Hence “those who sleep with men (and who sleep) with abstainers.” See similarly, Nagel, “Evangelium des Judas,” 244–45n93. In contrast to 39.15, I translate ѫџѵѷљѹљ (ǯǩǵǶǧάǧǫǯ) here as ‘abstain’ in order to convey the sexual connotation suggested by ѫѳљȗƉѫŶѥѯѥѷљ Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.6.3) also criticizes those who corrupt would-be abstainers. He lampoons followers of Ptolemy who claim they practice encratic marriages until the ‘sister’ (the allegedly chaste wife) is discovered to be pregnant by the ‘brother’ who seduced her. 40.15–17 And those who say “We are equal to angels,” indeed they are the stars. . . (ё>ѹ@ҁ ѫƉ>љ@ѷƉȝƉҁ ѩŶѩѯѵ ȝљ ёѫѯѫ țѫŶțѣѵѯѵ ѫёѕѕљѧѯѵ ёѹҁѫѷѯѯѹѫљѫŶѵѣѯѹ): See Chapter 2, section E.III for discussion. It is not clear where one should end the quotation introduced by ȝљ on line 15. I end the quote after ‘angels’ on line 16, and understand the following ёѹҁ as an adverbial Ǭǣ̈́ ‘indeed’. Alternatively, though less likely in my opinion, the quotation could extend to ‘completion’ on line 18. In this case ёѹҁ probably has a conjunctive sense: “those who say, ‘We are equal to angels, and (ёѹҁ) they (the angels) are the stars who bring all things to completion.’” The criticism would thus be directed against people who claim equality with angels and who also identify the angels with stars who accomplish all things. 40.17–18 the stars which bring all things to completion (ȝҁѥƉљѓѯѧѫŶțҁѓ ѫѣѩ): The idea that the stars bring everything to completion or fulfillment reflects ancient astrological lore, which imagined that stars effect human fate through cosmic sympathies with people in the world. A classic example of ancient Greco-Roman astrological ‘theory’, heavily indebted to Stoic notions of all pervasive Fate, can be found in the poem Astronomicon by Manilius (first century CE). For a pagan intellectual’s rebuttal of such claims, see Plotinus Enneads II.3, ‘On Whether the Stars are Causes.’ Already in the Hellenistic period, Jews began to identify the angels with stars (see note to 37.4–5).

202

The Gospel of Judas

40.21 through priests (ѫŶѷѯѯѷѯѹѫŶѯѹџџѓ  Kasser and Wurst (Crit. Ed. 199) read ѫŶѯѹџџѓ is a variant spelling of the plural ѫŶѫѯѹџџѓ ‘priests,’ because of the plural suffix on the preceding preposition (ѫŶѷѯѯѷŰѯѹ). I follow Peter Nagel’s observation (2007, 245n94) that it is a common haplography for the singular ѫŶѯѹ ѯѹџџѓ ‘a priest’ (e.g. Sahidic Luke 1:5; cf. Layton, Coptic Grammar, §24b). What, then, of the plural prefix in ѫŶѷѯѯѷŰѯѹ? According to Nagel, ѫŶѷѯѯѷѯѹ“ist hier noch nicht ›desemantisiert‹ als (zusammengesetzte) Präposition »durch«, »aus«, »von« (s. Crum, Dict. 427b; Westendorf, KHW 249), sondern hat seine lexikalische Bedeutung als Körperteil ѷѯѯѷ »Hand« bewahrt. Daher ist auch keine Numeruskongruenz zwischen dem suffix (Plural) und dem angeschlossen Substantiv (Singular) erforderlich.” Yet even if ѫŶѷѯѯѷѯѹ is a preposition, the plural suffix need not always agree with the singular complement. One finds a similar disagreement between the anticipatory suffix pronoun and the nominal complement in NHC I 41.34: țѣѷѯѯѷȗ ѫŶѫѣёѵѱёѵѩѯѵ. 41.1–6 Stop the [sacrifices of animals] which [you offered] upon the altar. They are on your stars and angels, and have already been completed there (țƩҁљѳҁѷѫŶѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣё@ѫƉțƉѫŶƉ>ѷ@љƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹљƉѫŶѷёѷƉ>љѷѫŶѷёѧѯѯѹљ țѳ@ёǼ țѣŶȝѫŶ ѱљѡѹѵѣёѵѷџƉ>ѳѣ@ѯƉѫƉ >љ@ѹțѣŶȝѫŶ ѫљѷѫŶѵѣѯѹ ѩѫŶƉ ѫљѷƉ>ѫŶ ё@ѕѕљѧѯѵљёѹȕѳѱȝҁѥљѓѯѧ>ѩŶ@ѩƉёѹ): One may also begin a new sentence with ѫŶѷёѷƉ>љѷѫŶѷёѧѯѯѹ@ (understood as a II Perfect), “Over the altar you offered them…”; a relative clause is permitted, however, if one understands the antecedent of ѷёѧѯŰѯѹ as ѫŶѡѹƉ>ѵѣё@, not the indefinite ѫƉțƉѫŶƉ>ѷ@љƉ>ѓѫѯ@ѯѹљ The verb ȕѳѱȝҁѥљѓѯѧprobably translates DzdzDZǶǧǭǧΝǯ, which in reference to sacrifice may mean something like ‘previously performed.’ The exact nuance of the circumstantial I Perfect (љё) is not clear. The clause probably does not go with the following sentence (ѩёѳѯѹȕҁѱљңƉљ) since one expects the post-positive ңƉљ in second position. The antecedent of љёѹ- is probably “the sacrifices of animals” in line 2, though one could also translate: “they (the sacrifices) are on your stars and angels, since they (the stars and angels) have already completed them (>ѩŶ@ѩƉёѹ).” However, while the variant spelling ѩŶѩƉёѹIRUѩŶѩѯѯѹ is found elsewhere in CT, it is never used in Judas. The passage may signify that the animal sacrifices of the twelve disciples (i.e., the religious observance of the crowd) do not attain to the true god, but only to the level of the stars and angels who reside in the temple of the stars referred to previously (see note to 39.12–15). The ChristianSethian treatise Melchizedek asserts a similar view, that specifically animal sacrifices “do not reach the father of the All,” though it simultaneously re-

Appendix B: Commentary

203

gards Jesus’ own self-sacrifice as the “living offering” (NHC IX 6.24–7.5; cf. Chapter 1). If, as I argue in Chapter 1, the Gospel of Judas assumes that Jesus’ sacrificial death has salvific power as a victory over demons, then one could understand љёȕѳѱȝҁѥљѓѯѧ here to mean that the efficacy of animal sacrifices has “already been completed” or perhaps “ended” by Jesus’ sacrifice. The worship performed by the apostolic cult is superfluous and in error because Jesus’ death has already annulled the demonic powers whom they serve (cf. 58.4–10). 41.21 the great, stable (race) (ѷѫѯȟљѷѷџȕ): The sense of ѷџȕ here undoubtedly conveys the Sethian self-understanding of their race as a stable, strong and ‘immoveable’ people, that is, unmoved by demonic powers and bodily passions. 15 ѷҁȕ translates such Greek words as Ƕ̾ǵǵǧǫǯ, ǶǣǬǶ͆ȍ, ‘stationed, drawn up in order, appointed, fixed,’ and ǵǶ̾ǵǫǮDZȍ, ‘stable, standing, stationary’ (Crum 449). The term is interchangeable with the Coptic word ѷёȝѳѯ (< ȝѯѯѳ , strong) used to describe the holy race elsewhere in Judas (36.25–26; cf. 35.2). 41.16–25 fountain. . . spring. . . lamp. . . baker: Jesus responds to the disciples’ request to be cleansed from their sins (41.9–13) with these enigmatic metaphors. They may represent the purification (probably by ritual baptism) which the disciples request of Jesus, along with intellectual illumination and eternal life (cf. John 3:5, 22–26; 6:31–59; 8:12). Since Jesus repeatedly asserts that the fountain, etc. are insufficient to supply everyone “except for” the great and stable race (41.21, 24; cf. 42.11–14), his message may be that one must become a member of the great race in order to enjoy the benefits of the fountain, spring, light, and bread. Because the polemic in the Gospel of Judas is directed at the twelve disciples in particular, Jesus may imply that they cannot become members of the great race, perhaps because of their close association with the astral powers (42.4– 10). 41.24 the second race (ѷѩљț!ѵƩѫѷљѫŶѕљѫљё): The text appears to be corrupt, and is not clear even with the emendation. The ‘second race’ is probably a poor Coptic translation of whatever Greek terms were in the Vorlage. It may be an attempt to refer to ‘the latter,’ i.e., the second race just referred to (namely the great, stable race on line 21) in contrast to ‘the former,’ i.e., ‘all the races’ (line 20).

15

See Michael A. Williams, The Immoveable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity, NHS 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1985).

204

The Gospel of Judas

42.7–8 each of you has his own star: According to Greco-Roman astrological lore, every individual has a personal star (cf. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 2.5.23). In his mythological account of the world’s creation, Plato postulated that each soul is associated with a star in the heavens (Timaeus 41d–42b). However, since Jesus is speaking to the twelve disciples in particular, he is not necessarily saying that everyone has a star. It may be that only the twelve disciples have stars, probably corresponding to the twelve signs of the Zodiac (see note to 36.1–4) and the twelve angels who serve Nebro and Saklas (51.20–21). Cf. Nicola Denzey Lewis, “Fate and the Wandering Stars.” 42.18–19 pillar (ѵѷƉѹѧѧѯѵ) of fire shall fall quickly: The pillar of fire may symbolize the chief creator angel Saklas (a parody of the God of Israel), since in the Bible, God led his people through the wilderness by appearing as a pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21–22, 14:24). Whereas Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I, 163.6) interprets the biblical pillar of fire as a symbol of God’s stability, Judas sees it something destined to fall. The pillar’s fall would, then, symbolize Saklas’s demise as alluded to later in Judas (54.1–21, 57.9–10). The Book of the Watchers uses the same imagery to depict the punishment of wicked angels. Enoch witnesses a place where apostate angels are punished, a great chasm into which “pillars of fire were going down” (ǶDZ͇ǴǵǶ͈ǭDZǷȍǶDZάDzǷdzͅȍǬǣǶǣǤǣ̈́ǯDZǯǶǣȍ 1 Enoch 18:11–12). Further on, Enoch sees a place even more terrible than the first, “full of pillars of great fire borne downward” (Dzǭ͂dzǩȍ ǵǶ͈ǭǻǯ DzǷdzͅȍ Ǯǧǥ̾ǭDZǷ ǬǣǶǣ ǸǧdzDZǮ̀ǯǻǯ). His angelic guide explains that this is a prison for the wicked angels (21:7–10). The Sibylline Oracles (3.672–74) similarly predicts that when God judges the world, “fiery swords will fall from heaven on the earth. Torches, great gleams, will come shining into the midst of men.” 42.25–43.8 The water on the high mountain . . . came to water the garden (ѱёƉ>ѳё@їљѣѵѯѵ) of God and the [fruit that] will endure: The garden and its fruit (ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱƉѯѵCrit. Ed. reconstructs ѱƉ>ѕљ@ѫƉѯѵ, race) refer to the holy race on earth, which the ‘water from the high mountain’ has come to irrigate. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 5.20) similarly says that the Christian church “has been planted as a paradise in this world” (plantata est enim ecclesia paradisus in hos mundo). The meaning of ‘the water from the high mountain’ is ambiguous. It may refer to baptism in the name of Jesus, which is the primary ritual of purification from demonic power assumed by the Gospel of Judas (55.23– 56.6; see Chapter 1 for discussion). The water could also be a figurative reference to the providential activity of heavenly Seth, who came to irri-

Appendix B: Commentary

205

gate his race on earth. Philo interprets Seth’s name (ʺˇ) as ‘irrigation’ (̖ DzDZǶǫǵǮ͆ȍ, an etymology derived from ʤʺˇ, ‘drink’), and speaks of Seth’s race as fruit-bearing plants (De posteritate caini 10, 42, 124–125; cf. Quaestiones in genesin I, 78).16 The Sethian Apocalypse of Adam also refers to people whom the illuminating Savior planted on earth as “fruitbearing trees” (NHC V 76.15). 43.17–23 when they have completed the time of the kingdom, and the spirit separates from them, their bodies will die, but their souls will live and they will be taken up: the ‘time of the kingdom’ probably refers to Adam’s (i.e. humanity’s) limited ‘time’ and ‘kingdom’ on earth (see 53.10–15; Genesis 1:28). Thus ‘completing the time of the kingdom’ refers to the death of one’s earthly body. In the Apocalypse of Adam, the patriarch similarly refers to his impending death as the time when “I complete the times (ȝҁѥљѓѯѧѫŶѫѣѯѹѯљѣȕ) of this race and the years of [the race] have come to an end” (NHC V 67.22–27). Judas’s notion that the human body dies while the souls of the holy race shall live on an be ‘taken up’ (ȗѣ) directly contradicts the idea of resurrected flesh advocated by many of the author’s contemporaries (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertulian). The Epistula Apostolorum 24 insists that “the flesh of every one will rise with his soul alive, and his spirit.”  43.26–44.2 It is impossibleto sow upon a [rock]>ѱљ@ѷ>ѳё@ so that their [fruit] may be harvested: ‘Their’ refers to the human races about whose fate Judas has just inquired (43.24–25). The metaphor adapts Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mark 4:2–20; Matthew 13:3–23; Luke 8:4–15; Thomas 9) in order to illustrate that one cannot sow on the human races because they are like rock which does not receive seed. Thus ‘their fruit’ cannot be harvested along with the fruit of the holy race (43.13), that is, their souls cannot ascend after bodily death. The reference to a rock could also be a veiled criticism of Peter as a leader of the twelve disciples and foundation of the apostolic churches (cf. Matthew 16:18, “You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church”). 44.4 along with perishable wisdom (ѷѵѯѻѣёѫѻѡёѳѷџ) [and] the hand that created mortals: It is unlikely that ‘wisdom’ is here personified (à la the Valentinian story of lower Sophia or Achamoth) since such a figure appears no where else in the Gospel of Judas. The idea seems to be that one cannot sow on the defiled race, nor their perishable, human wisdom (their ignorance), nor the demonic powers that created their human bodies, 16

See A. F. J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 25–27.

206

The Gospel of Judas

so that they can ascend on high with the holy race. The awkward syntax created by ѩŶѫŶ ѷѵѯѻѣё ѫѻѡёѳѷџ>ѩѫŶ@ѷƉңѣȝѫŶѷёѷёѩѣљѳҁѩљ ѫƉѡƉѫџ ѷѯѵ could suggest that these words originated as a marginal notation and were eventually copied into the text during transmission. 44.9 ruler (>ё@ѳƉѽƉҁƉѫ 7races of the top of 3–4 characters are visible before ѯƉѹƉ>їљ@. The last trace resemebles the lower right-hand corner of ѫ; the two preceding ink traces fit the top of ѽҁ, so that the scanty trace just after the lacuna would be the top of ѳ. Cf. the shape of ёѳѽҁѫ at 46.7 and 51.24. 44.8 you (pl.) (ѫџѷѫ): A singular is expected since Jesus is addressing Judas Iscariot alone at this point in the narrative (42.22–24). The plural probably reflects a formulaic saying, or less likely, the author’s imperfect adaptation of a source of Jesus sayings. 44.13–18 And after Jesus said this he left (ёȗѓҁѥ). Judas said, “Teacher, just as you listened to all of them, now listen to me. For I have seen a great vision”: The passage may reflect a literary seam since the dialogue continues after Jesus is said to have departed. Alternatively, the abrupt continuation of dialogue may have been deliberate in order to create a dramatic narrative effect (though some nuance was lost in translation into Coptic): as Jesus is leaving, Judas excitedly pipes up begging Jesus to stay and hear him out. Just as Jesus listened to the disciples about their dream, Judas too wants his turn. Hence Jesus’ following comment, “Why are you so worked up . . . If you speak too, I shall bear with you.” 44.21 thirteenth daimon (їёѣѩҁѫ  the word Ǧǣ̈́Ǯǻǯ can be translated as ‘demon,’ ‘spirit,’ even ‘god.’ Ancient Greeks believed that daimones were heavenly creatures who inhabited the regions between the gods proper and humanity. In contrast to the modern sense of demon as an evil creature, Greek daimones could be either benevolent or sinister, and Hellenistic Jews likened them to angels (e.g., Philo, On the Giants 6). Later in the dialogue, Jesus tells Judas that “you will become the thirteenth” (46.19–20) and that “your star will [rule] over the thirteenth realm” (55.12–13). The number 13 seems to be associated with the chief of the wicked angels, Saklas, just as in other Sethian texts he is called the “god of the thirteen realms” (Holy Book NHC III 63.18; Zostrianos NHC VIII 4.25–31; though in one Sethian text, the “thirteenth seal” characterizes the highest heaven (Marsanes NCH X 2.12 ff.). Thus Judas’s title ‘thirteenth daimon’ signifies that he will transcend the twelve disciples and the twelve realms ruled by the wicked angels (51.20–23). As we learn here, his fate is

Appendix B: Commentary

207

to rule over the human races who curse him, while his star rules over the thirteenth realm. Scholars debate whether this fate demonizes Judas Iscariot by making him the future ruler of the thirteenth realm in the place of Saklas, or if it rehabilitates Judas by appointing him to a middle-management position in the service of the true god.17 If this Gospel rehabilitates Judas (undoubtedly to support its polemic again the other disciples), it could resonate with the regime change implied in the eschatological vision of the Holy Book, which describes a “reconciliation of the world with the world through the renunciation of the world and the god of the thirteen aeons” (NHC III 63). A rehabilitated Judas could be likened to characters in other Sethian stories, such as Sabaoth in the Hypostasis of the Archons. There, Sabaoth begins his career as one of Saklas’s sons, but is later given a position of authority in the heavens after he repents and renounces his father. 45.6–7 that house was roofed with lightning (ѫљѯѹѵѷљѕџѫƉѯƉѹљƉѷљѱљ ѫŶңѣѱџљѣљѷѩŶѩƉ>ёѹ@): literally, “that house was a lightning-roofed one.” The Crit. Ed. reads the text as ѵѷљѕџƉ ѫƉѯƉѹѯƉѷљ, ‘roof of greenery,’ though they note that this reading is a crux. Jacques van der Vliet understands the entire construction as ‘a single room’ (readingѯƉѹѯƉѷљ as the feminine form of ѯѹҁѷ, single).18 I read the letter which the Crit. Ed. reconstructs as the middle vowel of ѯƉѹѯƉѷљ as an epsilon, the center stroke of which has faded. The reading ѯƉѹљƉѷљ would, then, be a variant spelling of ѯѹџѷљ, ‘lightning, fire’ (from Demotic wt). Accordingly, Judas’s vision of a great house with a ‘ѵѷљѕџ of lightning/fire’ draws from the tradition in the Book of the Watchers, in which Enoch describes the heavenly temple as having ǵǶ̀ǥǣǫ of ‘shooting stars and lightning flashes’ (ǦǫǣǦdzDZǮǣ̓˙ǵǶ̀dzǻǯǬǣ̓˙ǵǶdzǣDzǣ̈́ 1 Enoch 14:10–11) and a ǵǶ̀ǥǩ of flaming fire (DzάdzǸǭ̀ǥDZǯ 14:15–17).19 44.14–17 no mortally born human is worthy to enter the house that you saw: Jewish and Christian ascent literature frequently restrict mortals from entering heaven without first undergoing some kind of transformation involving spiritual rebirth, divestiture of the flesh, and/or bodily transforma-

17 See April DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle; Antti Marjanen, “Does the Gospel of Judas Rehabilitate Judas Iscariot?” in Gelitten, Gestorben, Auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum, ed. Tobias Nicklas et al. (Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 18 Jacques van der Vliet, “Judas and the Stars: Philological Notes on the Newly Published Gospel of Judas,” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 36 (2006): 137–152. 19 For a longer discussion of the issue, see Lance Jenott, “The Gospel of Judas 45,6–7 and Enoch’s Heavenly Temple” in Codex Judas Papers, 471–477.

208

The Gospel of Judas

tion into an angelic state.20 According to the Book of the Watchers, “no angel could enter this house and look at [God’s] face because of his splendor and glory; and no flesh could look at him” (DZ̡Ǭ˩Ǧ͈ǯǣǶDZDz΀ǵǣǵ̽dzǰ̅ǦǧΝǯ ǣ̡ǶDZά1 Enoch 14:21). In 1 Enoch 71:5–11 Enoch’s flesh melts and his spirit is transformed when he is taken to the heavenly house. In 2 Enoch, the eponymous hero is removed from his “earthly clothing,” dressed in the clothes of God’s glory, anointed with luminous oil, and becomes “like one of the glorious ones,” i.e., the angels (22:8–10). Consonant with this tradition, Paul too assumes that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50) and speaks of departing the mortal body for one’s true home in heaven “so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life” (2 Corinthians 5:1–8). In John 3:1–8, Jesus teaches that one must be “born from above” to enter the kingdom. See also Matthew 22:30; Ascension of Isaiah 8.27–9.30. Such a transformation was often achieved by ritual. The Sethian Holy Book speaks of baptism as rebirth into a logos-begotten body (NHC III 63). Judas probably advocates a similar baptismal theology, according to which baptism in the name of Jesus liberates the initiate from the power which demons exercise over his body, thus transferring him from the human races to the immortal race (see Chapter 1). 45.22–24 they will always stand in the realm with the holy angels: The idea that the saved shall ‘stand’ with the angels in the eschaton resonates with depictions of heaven found in other Jewish and Christian apocalypses. In the Book of the Parables, the “the congregation of the chosen and the holy will be sown; and all the chosen will stand in his presence on that day” (1 Enoch 62:8). In the Ascension of Isaiah, he saw “Enoch and all who were with him, stripped of their robes of the flesh; and I saw them in their robes above, and they were like the angels who stand there in great glory” (9.8–9). For a discussion of the theme of transcendental standing, see Williams, The Immovable Race, 74–85. 46.5–7 surely my own seed (țƩҁ ѱёѵѱљѳѩё) does not dominate (țѹѱѯѷёѵѵљ) over the rulers?: I read țҁ as a variant of țҁҁŰ, an intensive personal pronoun modifying ѱёѵѱљѳѩё (not, pace DeConick, the imperative ‘stop, be enough’). Compare the usage of țҁ in Sahidic Matthew 21:24; Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles (NHC IV 8) ёѹҁёѫѯѥțҁ ѫŶȗȝѣљѯѯѹѫŶȟѣѱёѳёѫ, “and so that my own name shall be glorified”; and the scribal note in NHC II 145: ёѳѣѱёѩљљѹљ țҁ ѫёѵѫџѹ “Remember me too in your prayers, my brothers.” 20

See Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 47–71.

Appendix B: Commentary

209

I translate țѹѱѯѷёѵѵљin the active voice, ‘to dominate, subject.’ The Crit Ed. translates it passively, “could it be that my seed is under the control of the rulers?” A passive sense is not impossible, however, since in Sahidic Romans (13:1) țѹѱѯѷёѵѵљ renders the Greek passive imperative ̢DzDZǶǣǵǵ̀ǵǪǻ. Judas’s question appears to be prompted by Jesus’ statement in the preceding lines, which are unfortunately damaged by a lacuna. Jesus may have said something to the effect that Judas’s ѕљѫљё or perhaps ѵѱѯѳё (a feminine singular noun is required due to ѷѫѯѯѹŰѵ on line 2) has been sent up over the twelve realms. Judas then asks how his ‘seed’ (ѵѱљѳѩё) can subordinate the archons. A similar conversation between a certain Judas and Jesus occurs in the Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III 138.11–16): “Judas said, ‘Behold! The governors dwell above us, so it is they who will rule over us!’ (50) The Lord said, ‘It is you who will rule over them!’” A common tradition may underlie these two passages. 46.24–25 In the last days they to you. And you will not go up to the holy race ѫŶțёљѯѹ ѫѫљțƩѯѯѹ ѵљѫё s ѥ  – – –! ѫёѥ ёѹҁ ѫљѥѓƉҁƉѥƉ љѱȕҁǼљѷ vacѕ>љѫљёљѷѯѹ@ёƉёƉѓ The passage is a notorious crux that has given rise to polarized debates over whether or not Judas ascends to the holy race. There are two key problems: an apparent scribal error, and a translation choice. (i) Scribal error: A verb, and perhaps more, appear to have been omitted by homioarcton. The scribe’s eye probably jumped from what was ѵљѫё in the exemplar to the dative ѫёѥ which begins 46.25. (ii) Translation of ѫљѥѓҁѥ There are two possibilities which allow opposite translations: “you will go up,” reading ѫљѥ as the plene spelling of the 2nd sg. conjunctive (Layton, Coptic Grammar §351); or “you will not go up,” reading ѫљѥ as a Negative III Future (Layton, Coptic Grammar §338; Till, Koptische Dialektgrammatik §254). In favor of the second (negative) translation is the fact that one does not find the plene form of the conjunctive elsewhere in Codex Tchacos (see ѫѥ at 12.4; 13.20; 16.6; 18.22, 23; 20.11, 20; 21,16?; 23.12; 27.21; ѫѕ 20.23; 21.2?; ѫȗ- 24.18; 25.4; 35.4?; 36.7), whereas this form of the Negative III Future is used (ѫљѹ- at 54.10). 48.22–23 first cloud of light (ѷȕѯѳƩѱѫŶңџѱљѫѷљѱѯѹѯǼѫ): This cloud undoubtedly refers back to the first luminous cloud introduced into the narrative on the previous page, the cloud from which Autogenes came forth (47.5–21). The Holy Book (NHC III 49.1 ff.) similarly says that Adamas was produced by a feminine figure named Meirothoe, whom it also de-

210

The Gospel of Judas

scribes as “the cloud of the great light” (III: ѷȟџ>ѱљѩŶѱ@ѫѯȟѫŶѯѹѯљѣѫ; IV: ȡѫƉ>ѯȟѫŶѥѧѯѯ@ѧљѫŶѷљѱѯѹѯљѣѫ). The Gospel of Judas uses both Coptic words for ‘cloud’ interchangeably (ѥѧѯѯѧљ 47.15; ȟџѱљ 48.22). According to Crum (825b), ȟџѱљ is more characteristically northern, while ѥѧѯѯѧљ is more southern. Such variation may indicate multiple stages of transmission in Coptic during which the vocabulary of the text was altered, though imperfectly, according to regional dialects. One can actually see this process of dialectical alteration at work in Nag Hammadi Codex V (Apocalypse of Adam), where an ancient reader wrote ѥѧѯѯѧљ above ȟџѱљ in the main text (81.16), and vice versa just lines below (81.19). 50.17–18 his seventy-two realms (ѱљȗȕȗљѵѫѯƉѯѹѵ ѫŶѫёѣҁѫ): These seventy-two ‘realms’ were not previously mentioned in the cosmogony, but should probably be identified with the seventy-two ‘heavens’ (ѫѯѹѳё ѫѯѵ) created at 49.23. This terminological shift may indicate that Judas’s author was at this point no longer adapting material from his source(s), but composed this section himself as a brief summary of the preceding narrative. 50.20 the first human (ѱȕѳѱѫŶѳҁѩљ) refers to Adamas, the heavenly archetype of humanity. His “incorruptible powers” correspond to the race of Seth, which was earlier described as “the incorruptible race” (49.5–6). Adamas is also the first human in the Sethian Holy Book (NHC III 49.8– 10; IV 61.8–9). The Apocryphon of John, on the other hand, clearly identifies Barbelo as the first human (NHC II 5.5; 6.2–3; 14.23), and calls Adamas the “perfect human” (II 8.32). 50.24–51.1 the cloud of knowledge dwells with the angel named El[eleth]: The cloud of knowledge may be a substitute for the character of Sophia, who is identified as a cloud (ѯѹȟџѱљ) in the Holy Book’s parallel text (NHC III 56.6–57.1). Eleleth, one of the four ‘luminaries’ who serve Autogenes in Sethian mythology, is also called an angel, ‘the great angel,’ in the Hypostasis of the Archons, where he is associated or even identified with ‘wisdom’ itself (ѷѩƩѫƩѷѵёѓљ II 93.8–9). 51.10–11 Fire spews forth from his face, and his likeness is [defiled] with blood: This description of the angel Nebro draws from Jewish and Christian representations of the creator-god and/or angels as fiery beings. The Apocalypse of Abraham describes God as fiery and with a luminous face of lightning (17:11, 15, 16, 18–19; cf. Ezekiel 1). According to Tertullian (Praescriptione 34), Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, taught that the crea-

Appendix B: Commentary

211

tor was made of fire. The Latin Apocalypse of Paul (11) describes malicious angels below the first firmament of heaven whose hair and mouths emit fire. Angels with bloody faces, perhaps to signify their ferociousness, are found in some Jewish apocalyptic traditions as well. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah 4:4 describes beastly angels with blood mixed in their eyes, and similar imagery is found the Hekhalot texts.21 A fiery angel appears in the Sethian writing the Hypostasis of the Archons as well, but in contrast to Judas, he serves Providence as a punitive agent who chastises the wicked creator angels (NHC II 95.4–13). 51.12–14 He is [named] Nebro, which means ‘apostate’ (ёѱƉ>ѯѵ@ѷё ѷџѵ): The tradition that Nebro’s name means apostate derives from exegesis about the mythological king and mighty hunter Nimrod (Genesis 10:8– 12; cf. 1 Chronicle 1:10; Micah 5:6), whose Hebrew name ʣˣʸ ʮʍ ʑ ʰ is based on the root ʣʸʮ, ‘to rebel.’ In the LXX, his name is spelled ǐǧǤdzǻǦ. This interpretation probably originated in a Hebrew or Aramaic environment, and was later transmitted into Greek where the term ˙DzDZǵǶ̾Ƕǩȍ was given as the meaning of ǐǧǤdzǻǦ. The Gospel of Judas preserves this tradition, though the final delta on ǐǧǤdzǻǦ has been omitted resulting in Nebrô.22 Myths of angelic apostasy found in Judas and other Sethian writings (the Holy Book; Trimorphic Protennoia; Hypostasis of the Archons) belong to a wider variety of early Christian speculations about the origins of demonic powers in the world. Athenagoras (Embassy, 24.2–5 ff.) similarly speaks of an apostate angel whom God originally appointed to rule over the lower regions: he is the “archon over matter and material things” while his angelic servants are “stationed at the first firmament.” Similar apostate myths can be found in other second-century Christian authors (e.g, Justin Martyr’s 2 Apology).23 Christians developed these stories from earlier Jewish myths about ‘the angels of the nations’ whom God appointed to rule over each human race (cf. Deut 32:8 LXX; Jubilees 15:31–32; ben Sira 17:17; Daniel 10:13, 12:1) together with tales of angelic apostasy from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition (e.g., 1 Enoch; Qumran literature; Apocalypse of Abraham 23:12–13).

21 Peter Schäfer, Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992), 33n94. 22 See Bernard Barc, “À propos de deux themes de l’Évangile de Judas: Nébrô et les étoiles,” in Gnosis and Revelation: Ten Studies on Codex Tchacos, ed. Madeleine Scopello. Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 44.3 (2008): 655. 23 See Elaine Pagels, “Christian Apologists and ‘the Fall of the Angels’: An Attack on Roman Imperial Power?” Harvard Theological Review 78.3 (1985): 301–325.

212

The Gospel of Judas

51.19 and Saklas (did likewise) (ёѹҁѵёѥѧёѵ): The syntax is ambiguous, and is probably a poor Coptic translation of the Greek Vorlage. The sense seems to be that Nebro and Saklas create six angels each, for a total of twelve, not that Nebro creates six angels and Saklas. This interpretation lends clarity to the next two sentences: the twelve angels created by Nebro and Saklas (ѫёǼ in 51.20) create for themselves another twelve angels. These, then, constitute the ‘twelve rulers’ who speak to the ‘twelve angels’ (51.24–25). The origin of the twelve rulers introduced in 51.24 would otherwise be unaccounted for in the narrative. Cf. Holy Book NHC IV 69.4–5. 51.20 these (ѫёǼ) presumably refers to the twelve angels created by Nebro and Saklas. The reference is less likely to Nebro and Saklas themselves, in which case the sentence would simply recapitulate their creation of six angels each. 52.5–6 [Ya]ôth, who is called † the Ram; † (>ѣё@ҁƉѡƉѱљѷљȕёѹѩѯѹ>ѷљ љ@ѳѯȗȝљѱљѽƩѵ): The editors of the Crit. Ed. reconstruct the partially broken text as >ѵ@џƉѡ ѱљѷљȕёѹѩѯѹ>ѷљ љ@ѳѯȗ ȝљ ѱљѽƩѵ, “[S]eth, who is called ‘the Christ.’” Despite the fact that the context describes an angelic minister of Saklas, they suggest that Judas invokes a common Sethian tradition of identifying heavenly Seth with Christ.24 Alternatively, John Turner aptly suggests the reconstruction >ёѡ@џƉѡ ѱљѷљȕёѹѩѯѹ>ѷљљ@ѳѯȗȝљѱљѽƉѵ, “[Ath]êth who is called ‘the good one’ (ǹdzǩǵǶ͆ȍ).”25 Turner’s reading is based on a parallel tradition preserved in the Apocryphon of John, which associates the figure of Athôth (ёѡҁѡ) with the quality of ѩѫѷѽƩѳƩѵ, from ǹdzǩǵǶ͆ȍ, ‘goodness’ (NHC II 12.16, spelled ѩѫѷѽƩѵ in BG 43.16). Turner’s suggestion makes much more sense than “[S]eth who is called Christ.” In fact, the ink trace reconstructed by the Crit. Ed. as an êta in >ѵ@џƉѡ can arguably be read as the bottom stroke of an omega, so that the spelling >ёѡ@ҁƉѡcould be restored in Judas as well.26 However, the difficulty with Turner’s restoration is that Judas already includes the name ёѡҁѡ in its list, amalgamated into the name of the second angel țёѳѩёѡҁѡ (where the parallel traditions read țёѳѩёѵ 24 See the annotation to the first English translation in Gospel of Judas, 38n116, and Meyer, “Gnostic Connection,” 155–157; 167–168. 25 Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas,” 203–204; idem, “Sethian Myth,” 99n10. 26 The editors of the Critical Edition (p. 223), assert that “the letter before ѡ is certainly not ҁҕ, so that the name ёѡ@ҁҕѡ that we find in the parallel texts . . . is excluded.” I disagree with their assessment. The traces fit the lower right-hand corner of ҁ. One can see a dark ink trace at the base with a more faded trace protruding upward from its right side (compare the faded horizontal stroke in the following theta). The traces correspond nicely to an omega’s center and right-hand strokes.

213

Appendix B: Commentary

and țљѳѩёѵ; see the table below). Although Turner (“Sethian Myth,” 117) notes that Athôth “occurs as part of the bowdlerized name for the second angel Hama{thoth}, normally Harmas,” he does not explain why, according to his hypothesis, Athôth would appear in both first and second positions. The fact that the name Harmathôth appears to be ‘bowdlerized’ suggests that the author of Judas (or a later editor) deliberately appended the name Athôth to Harmas in order to introduce a different name as the first angel. Although this difficult problem may never be solved with certainty, I suggest that the name of the first angel should be reconstructed as >ѣё@ҁƉѡ (Yaôth) on the basis of the parallel tradition preserved in the Berlin Codex’s version of the Apocryphon of John (BG 40.5, aspirated Haôth in Codex III). The reading >ѣё@ҁƉѡ finds further support in the fact that Judas’s roster agrees more closely with the Berlin Codex and NHC III against the version in NHC II: Judas 52.5–11

Berlin 40.5–9

NHC III 16.20–24

NHC II 10.29–33

[Ya]ôth

Yaôth

Haôth

Athôth

Harmathôth

Hermas

Harmas

Harmas

Galila

Galila

Galila

Kalila Oumbri

Yôbel

Yôbel

Yôbel

Yabel

Adônaios

Adônaios

Adônaios

Adônaiou Sabaoth

According to my hypothesis, the author or editor was aware of both Athôth and Yaôth traditions, and for some reason – perhaps because of the magical power of angelic names – wanted both in the list, preferring Yaôth in first position. Thus he simply appended Athôth to the name Harmas in the second position and added Yaôth as the first angel. Yaôth appears as the name of the first angel not only in the Berlin Codex, but in a list of names engraved on an ancient apotropaic amulet as well.27 The attraction of placing Yaôth as the first angel may have been a perceived relationship with the tetragrammaton, YHWH. The angel’s nickname (ѱљѽƩѵ) is also a difficult crux. Jacques van der Vliet (“Judas and the Stars,” 150, drawing from Michel Tardieu, Écrits gnostiques [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984], 279) suggests that the original form of the tradition identified Athôth as ѱљѥѳѣѯѵ (DZƄǬdzǫDZŲȍ), ‘the Ram,’ based on the Hebrew etymology of Athôth, ʣ˒ˢʔʲ, ‘he-goat.’ A vestige of 27

For a photograph of the amulet, see Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking, plate 15b. For discussion of the name Yaôth, see ibid., 103–105; Howard Jackson, “The Origin in Ancient Incantory Voces Magicae of Some Names in the Sethian Gnostic System,” Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989): 69–79.

214

The Gospel of Judas

this tradition can still be seen in the Apocryphon of John from Codex II, where Athôth is described with the face of a sheep (țѯ ѫŶѫљѵѯѯѹ II 11.26–27; III and BG read ‘face of a lion,’ ѱțёѫŶѩѯѹљѣѻѯѩѩѯѹљѣ). According to van der Vliet’s hypothesis, a Christian scribe mistook ѱљѥѳѣѯѵ, Ram, for ѱљѽѳѣѵѷѯѵ, Christ, which then became abbreviated with the nomen sacrum ѱљѽƩѵ. I would add to van der Vliet’s hypothesis an intervening stage which clarifies how the transition from ѥѳѣѯѵ to ѽƩѵmay have occurred. At some point a scribe read the word ѥѳѣѯѵ, Ram, as a nomen sacrum for ѥѹѳѣѯѵ, Lord, and then abbreviated it as ѥƩѵ or ѥƩѳƩѵ. This form was then altered at a later point to read ѽƩѵ. Scholars have observed such a tendency with the scribe of the Berlin Codex, who frequently changed ȝƩѵ, Lord, to ѽƩѵ, Christ.28 It is likely that ancient readers of Judas, both in its Greek and Coptic versions, would not have recognized ѱљѽƩѵ as ‘the Ram.’ They may have interpreted it variously as either ǹdzǫǵǶ͆ȍ, anointed one/Christ, or ǹdzǩ ǵǶ͆ȍ, ‘the Good.’ If the former, they could have interpreted it as a reference to a counterfeit Christ among the demonic rulers. The Trimorphic Protennoia implies such an idea when the Logos declares “[the archons] thought [that I] was their anointed one/Christ (ѽѳѵ) . . . in that place I clothed myself [as] the son of the chief creator, and I was like him until the end of his decree” (NHC XIII 49.7–15). It is also possible to read the manuscript as ѱљȝƩѵ (for ѱȝѯǼѵ), ‘Lord,’ since the character after epsilon could be a janjia (ȝ) with a slightly damaged bottom stroke (compare with the ȝ on 52.13). Thus ѱљȝƩѵ would simply translate Adonai, the traditional substitute for the tetragrammaton YHWH from which the name Yaôth derives. This reading is problematic, however, because the articulated form of this nomen sacrum is spelled ѱȝƩѵ elsewhere in Codex Tchacos (cf. 59.17, 62.6), and most other Coptic manuscripts, without the plene form of the article. The Sophia of Jesus Christ in the Berlin Codex (90.15) does attest to the plene spelling ѱљȝƩѵ, but the editors (Till and Schenke, p. 220) correctly note that it is probably a scribal emendation from ѱљѽƩѵ, the Christ, which retained the plene form of the article. 52.11–14 These are the five who ruled over the underworld and the chiefs over chaos: The names of these angels belong to a common Sethian tradition that twelve angels serve the creator god (cf. Judas 51.5–6, 20–21; Holy Book NHC III 58.7–22; Apocryphon of John NHC II 10.28–11.4). Although Judas evidently knows the tradition of twelve angels (51.5–6, 28

Michael Waldstein and Frederick Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; IV,1 with BG 8502,2 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 72.

Appendix B: Commentary

215

20–25), it only provides the names of the first five. The author probably limited his list to these five based on another tradition that the creator appointed seven rulers over the planetary spheres and five over the regions below (Apocryphon of John II 11.4–6; cf. Søren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, 212 on the astrological associations). 52.14–17 Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and image.’: Judas follows a common Sethian interpretation of Genesis 1:26 and 2:7, according to which the angels fashion (Dzǭ̾ǵǵǧǫǯ) earthly Adam after the divine likeness and image of heavenly Adamas and/or Barbelo which appeared to them in the sky (see Apocryphon of John NHC II 14.13–24; Holy Book III 59.1–9; Hypostasis of the Arcons 87.11– 27). That the author of Judas omits the scene in which the angels see the divine image may indicate that he assumed his audience was already familiar with the story. However, Adamas’s appearance in the sky above may also be hinted at in a previous passage: “this (i.e., the upper realms) is the place in which the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers” (50.18–22). 52.18–21 Adam and his wife Eve, though in the cloud she (Eve) is called Zoe: Eve’s appearance is unexpected in a narrative of humanity’s creation, where usually only Adam is mentioned. The fact that both are named here may reflect an attempt to explain how God created humanity, “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, 5:2). The Greek word Zoe, ‘Life,’ translates the Hebrew name Eve in Genesis 3:20 (LXX). Although Judas has arguably omitted feminine figures such as Barbelo and Sophia from its creation story (see Chapter 3), it includes the feminine figure of Eve/Zoe. The author of Judas may have omitted Barbelo and Sophia in order to avoid attributing providential roles in the creation of the universe to feminine figures, yet retained Eve/Zoe in his narrative of the creation of earthly humanity because of her necessary role for human procreation. That “in the cloud she is called Zoe” could indicate that a heavenly Zoe pre-exists with Adamas in his cloud (cf. 48.22); or, it may simply indicate that earthly Eve is called Zoe by the heavenly denizens in the cloud. 52.21–25 For with this name all the races seek him (ȕѣѫљѫѵҁȗ), and each of them refers to her by their (own) names: ‘Him’ presumably refers to Adam, while ‘her’ refers to Eve. The precise meaning of whatever Greek verb underlies ȕѣѫљѫѵҁȗ may be lost in Coptic translation. Although it usually means ‘to seek after’ (< ǨǩǶǧΝǯ, ˙ǯǣǨ, ˩ǬǨ. ˩DzǫǨ.), it can also translate ˙ǬdzǫǤDZάǯ, ‘to investigate/understand/describe thoroughly’ (Crum 569b). The intended meaning may be that all the races recognize the

216

The Gospel of Judas

first man under the name Adam, but call the first woman by their own names, some Eve, some Zoe. A similar juxtaposition between the Hebrew and Greek names for the same mythological figure appears in the Apocalypse of Adam’s reference to “Noah whom the races will call Deucalion” (NHC V 70.17–18). 53.15–16 just like his ruler (ѩƉƩѫƉѱљȗёѳѽƉҁѫ): Literally “with his ruler.” The sense is that Adam received a limited time to rule his kingdom, just as Saklas’s time has been fixed (cf. 54.19–20). A similar usage of ѩѫ is found in the Hypostasis of the Archons: ѫŶѵёȕȗŶ ѫŶȕџѳљ ѫŶțѯѹѷѵțѣѩљ ѩѫŶ ѱѯѹљѣҁѷ, which Bentley Layton translates as “seven offspring, androgynous just like (lit. ‘with’) their parent” (NHC II 95.4–5). 53.17 does the human spirit die? (ȕёѱƩѫƩёѫŶѳҁѩљѩѯѹ I read ȕё as a variant of the conjugation ȕёѳљ. See Till, Dialektgrammatik, p. 51. 53.18–26 In this way God commanded Michael to give the spirits of people to them while they serve: as a loan. But the Great One commanded Gabriel to give spirits to the great kingless race, the spirit and the soul. Therefore, the rest of the souls [. . .]: The editors of the NGS 2006 English translation (40n124) suggest that the two references to God and the Great One refer not to one, but two different gods, namely Saklas and the transcendent God respectively. This is an unnecessary assumption, however. The two names can be explained as a reference to the same god (the Invisible Spirit or Autogenes) by the literary convention of poetic parallelism. Such parallelism, ultimately derived from Hebrew poetry, had been adopted in prose apocalyptic literature already by the Hellenistic period. In the Book of the Watchers, for example, one finds “the Great Holy One . . . the eternal God” and “the Most High declared . . . the Great Holy One spoke” (1 Enoch 1:4; 10:1; cf. 14:2; 12:3). The idea that the holy race received the spirit and/or soul from Gabriel or an ‘eternal angel’ appears to be a Sethian tradition. According to the apocalypse of Zostrianos, the Invisible Spirit “is with [Gabriel] the spiritgiver, [so that] when he gives a holy spirit he might seal him with the crown” (NHC VIII 58.21–22). The Apocalypse of Adam says that the soul of the undefiled race “did not come from a defiled hand, but it came from a great commandment of an eternal angel” (NHC V 75.5–8). Similarly Adam says that “those who reflect upon the knowledge of the eternal God in their hearts will not perish. For they have not received spirit from this kingdom alone (i.e, the kingdom of the demiurge: cf. 66.21–23) but they have received (it) from an [. . .] eternal angel” (NHC V 76.21–27).

Appendix B: Commentary

217

If God and the Great One refer to the Invisible Spirit (or Autogenes), then Jesus teaches that all races, whether kingless or human, received spirit from God, but that only the kingless race received soul from him. The human races evidently possess soul as well, yet one that is destined for obliteration at the time of bodily death (43.15–16). The souls of mortal humans can be equated with “the [other] souls” to which Jesus refers here (53.26). Although Jesus gives no explicit account of the origin of human souls, it may be implied that they were created by Saklas and his angels, as one finds in the Apocryphon of John (NHC II 15; cf. Plato’s Timaeus 40a–b; 41a ff.). These souls would, then, belong to the angelic creation that is destined for destruction (43.15–16; 55.21–22). This mythical anthropology, including a spirit, soul, and body, may be understood as an adaptation of Stoic psychology, according to which God provides all creation with pneuma, while psyche is a faculty possessed only by animals and humans. Furthermore, only humans possess a rational soul, while animals have an irrational soul. 29 Mutatis mutandis, the Gospel of Judas speaks of everyone receiving spirit from God, but differentiates between two types of souls possessed by human beings. Members of the holy race possess an immortal soul given by God via Gabriel, while the human races – the equivalent of the Stoics’ irrational animal – only possess a mortal soul which shall die after the spirit departs from them (43.15–16). 54.8–12 God had knowledge brought to Adam and those with him so that the kings of chaos and the underworld might not rule (ѳŶȝѯљѣѵ) over them: The Apocryphon of John (NHC II 20.9–28) includes a similar tradition, that when Providence took pity on the divine power within earthly Adam, it sent him Eve (Zoe/Life) as a helper lest the archons “gain power over the psychic and perceptible body” (the verbiage in the version from the Berlin Codex is even closer to that in Judas: “[since (the rulers) were going to] rule over (>ѳ@ȝѯљѣѵ) the body”). God also gives knowledge to Adam in the Apocalypse of Adam. There, Adam tells Seth about the gnosis he and Eve received before their fall from enlightenment, and how they lost that knowledge when they came under the servitude of the creator (NHC V 64.12–28; 65.9–13; 67.4–9; cf. 85.22–24, “this is the hidden knowledge of Adam which he gave to Seth”). 54.18–20 when Saklas fulfills the times allotted to him: That Saklas will come to the end of his appointed time reflects a conventional apocalyptic idea that God has fixed a limit on the time that evil (apostate angels, de29 My description of Stoic psychology is based upon A. A. Long, “Soul and Body in Stoicism,” Phronesis 27.3 (1982): 34–57; idem, Hellenistic Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 168, 172–174.

218

The Gospel of Judas

mons, Sin, Death, etc.) will reign in over the world. See, for example, Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93); Daniel 11:35; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Apocalypse of Abraham 29. 54.21 their first star: 1 Enoch 90:21 identifies the ‘first star’ as the leader of the fallen angels. In Judas, the first star may be Judas Iscariot himself, since Jesus tells him that his star will rule over the thirteenth realm (55.12– 13) and that the ‘leading star’ is his (57.20–21; cf. Luke 22:47). If Judas Iscariot is the first star mentioned in this passage, then he too would be associated with the future outbreak of sin that Jesus predicts will follow the completion of Saklas’ appointed time. This may help explain Jesus’ later comment to Judas, “already your horn is raised, your anger is kindled, and your star has passed” (56.22–24). 55.19–21 these six stars go astray with these five warriors: This highly ambiguous reference may be to the astrological counterparts of the other eleven disciples, in contrast to Judas Iscariot’s star which, Jesus said, shall reign over the thirteenth realm. The significance of their division into groups of ‘six stars’ and ‘five warriors (ѱѯѧљѩѣѵѷџѵ)’ remains unclear. The notion of heavenly warriors is consonant with the description of the stars as an army in Jewish and Christian mythology (see note to 37.4–5). 56.7–11 Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured. Yet indeed I [say] to you (pl.), no hand of a dying mortal [will fall] upon me: The person who bears me ѳҁѩљљѷѳŶѻѯѳљѣѩѩѯљѣ) refers to Jesus’ body, while me proper refers to Jesus’ divine element which came from the immoral realm (35.17–19). Jesus uses the same terminology when he predicts that Judas shall sacrifice “the person who bears me” just lines below (56.20–21). The metaphor of the body as a vehicle which ‘bears’ (ǸDZdzǧΝǯ) the soul is found already in Plato (Timaeus 45a, cf. 69c) and Philo (De Opificio 69). Plato also posited that the good man cannot truly suffer injustice; although his body may suffer, his soul will not be harmed (Gorgias 521–522; cf. Clement, Stromata 4.8 on the torture of Anaxarchus). The implied Christology in Judas need not be understood as docetic, but as a variation of the twonatures Christology popular among many early Christians who maintained that only Jesus’ human body suffered. See Chapter 1 for discussion. 56.22 your horn is raised: In the Bible, an exalted horn symbolizes power, victory, kingship, and sometimes even arrogance (e.g., 2 Samuel 2:1; 1 Kings 22:11; Psalms 75:4–10, 89:17–27, 112:7–9, 132:17, 148:14). The image of Judas’s raised horn here may be intended to demonize him by portraying him as an angry disciple who sacrifices Jesus; or it may signify

Appendix B: Commentary

219

Judas’s role in the victory over the wicked ruler who shall be ‘wiped out’ (cf. 57.9–10). 56.23 your anger is kindled (ѱљѥȟҁѫƩѷź ёȗѩѯѹț : At least two translations are possible: “Your anger is kindled” or “your anger is full.” For the former, see Crum 210a with reference to Numbers 11:1 (˩ǪǷǮ͊Ǫǩ ̕dzǥΐ). 56.24 your star has passed over (ȝҁѓљ): Ancient astrologers sometimes associated a rising star with anger, and a declining star with peacefulness. Plotinus criticizes such astrological speculation in Enneads II.3.3.13–14: “Nor, moreover, does another (planet) become angry when it rises, and calm when it declines” (DZ̡Ǧϋǣ̧ǪǷǮDZάǶǣǫ˙ǯǣǶǧǡǭǣǴ˝ǭǭDZǴDzdzǣǢǯǧǶǣǫ Ǧ̿˙DzDZǬǭǡǯǣǴǧ̌ǴǦǟǶǫǴǣ̡ǶιǯǬǣ̓˙DzDZǬǭǡǯǣǴ˙Ǯǧǡǯǻǯ). 56.25 your heart has [strayed] (ѱљѥțџѷŶёƉ>ȗѥҁ@ѷљ): If the reconstruction >ѥҁ@ѷљ is correct, it may translate Dzǭǣǯ΀ǯ (Crum 124a), and would thus play on the ‘straying’ of Judas’s heart and the ‘passing’ of his star. The Gospel of Judas affiliates Dzǭ̾ǯǩ with astral guidance elsewhere (45.13–14; 55.17–19; cf. 41.12–13). 57.4–6 [the thrones] of the realm have been [defeated]; the kings have become weak: The fall of kings is a common eschatological trope in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The idea stems from ancient Near Eastern literary motifs of Chaosbeschreibung (descriptions of chaos) which illustrate crises by inverting the normal social and political orders.30 For the eschatological fall of kings in Jewish and Christian literature, see 1 Enoch 46:4–6, 53:5, 62:9–12; Revelation 18:8–19, 19:19–21; Sibylline Oracles 3.635–637, 663–664. 57.8–9 the wickedness they [sowed . . .] is obliteratedȗƉҁƉѷƉ>љ@  Here, ȗƉҁѷљ withoutљѓѯѧ (contrast 56.5, 57.10) may translate something like ˩ǰǣ̈́dzǧǵǪǣǫ, ‘be removed, annulled’ (Crum 624a). 57.6–7 the races of the angels have mourned (ёȕƉ>ё@țѯѩ): Angelic lamentation over their own destruction at the time when the savior appears is a common trope in Sethian eschatology. The conclusion to the Hypostasis of 30 See Jan Assmann, “Königsdogma und Heilserwartung. Politische und kultische Chaosbeschreibungen in ägyptischen Texten,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. David Hellholm (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983); Samuel K. Eddy, The King is Dead (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961). David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 183–185.

220

The Gospel of Judas

the Archons (NHC II 97.10–12) says that after the savior arrives and imparts the spirit of truth to humanity, “then the authorities will relinquish their seasons, and their angels will weep (ѳѣѩљ) over their destruction, and their demons will grieve (ѳŶțџѓљ) over their death.” So also in the Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII 44.8–28), the powers lament their own destruction when the heavenly savior descends. Weeping, wailing, and lamenting are also conventional tropes in Jewish and Christian eschatological literature, though not always associated with the angels. See Zechariah 12:10–14; 1 Enoch 12:6, 9; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7, 18:8–19; Sibylline Oracles 2.157. 57.9–10 [and] the ruler is wiped out (ѱƩёƩѳ>ѽƩҁƩѫ@љƉȗȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ): I read љƉȗȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ as a II Present with ѱёѳ>ѽҁѫ@ as the extraposited subject. Emendation to a III Future љȗљ!ȗҁѷљ, “he wiped out,” is not necessary (pace Nagel and Schenke Robinson). Sudden shifts in tense are not uncommon in apocalyptic literature. Here, the tense shifts from future, “you will sacrifice (ѥѫёѳѡѹѵѣёѵљ)” (56.21), to a series of statements in the Perfect (ёѱљѥѷёѱ ȝѣѵљ ёȗѩѯѹț ёȗȝҁѓљ ёƉ>ȗѥҁ@ѷљ ёƉѹƉȟƉҁƉ>ѷѱ ёѹѳŶȟҁѓ 56.21–57.6), to two in the II Present (љƉѹƉȗƉҁƉѷƉ>љљƉȗȗҁѷљљѓѯѧ). The two Present tense verbs stress the already present implications of Jesus’ impending sacrifice: the wickedness sowed by the angels is, in effect, destroyed and the ruler is wiped out. Jesus then closes the prophecy in the future tense: “the great race of Adam will be exalted (ȗѫёȝѣѵљ).” A similar dramatic effect is achieved by the shifting of tenses in the Gospel of John: “now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler (˝dzǹǻǯ) of this world be cast out” (12:31); “now the Son of Man has been glorified” (13:31); “the ruler of this world has been condemned” (16:11). 57.11–12 then the [fruit] (ѱƉ>ѥёѳ@ѱѯѵ) of the great race of Adam shall be exalted: On the reconstruction and interpretation, see Chapter 1. 57.22–23 Judas raised his eyes, saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it: See Chapter 1, section B.II for discussion. 58.11 guest room (ѥёѷёѧѹѩё): An allusion to the location of Jesus’ last supper before the betrayal and crucifixion. See Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11. 58.9–18 Their chief priests murmured because he went into the guest room for his prayer. And there were some scribes plotting (ѱёѳёѷџѳљѣ) to seize him (ёѩёțѷƉ>љ@ѩƉѩѯȗ) during the prayer; for they feared the people (ѫљѹѳŶțƩѯѷљѕёѳțџѷȗŶѩƉѱѧёѯѵ) because he (was seen) by all of

Appendix B: Commentary

221

them as a prophet (țҁѵѱѳѯѻџѷџѵ): The passage echoes the activities of Jesus’ enemies in the Synoptic Gospels. The author of Judas was clearly aware of Synoptic traditions, and amalgamated various phrases together to form his narrative. The verbiage closely resembles Matthew 21:46: although “the chief priests and Pharisees . . . tried to arrest him (ǣ̡Ƕͅǯ ǬdzǣǶΏǵǣǫ), they feared the multitude (˩ǸDZǤ͂ǪǩǵǣǯǶDZ͇Ǵ̙ǹǭDZǷǴ) because they held him to be a prophet (̮Ǵ DzdzDZǸ͂Ƕǩǯ).” However, Judas says nothing about Pharisees or an ̙ǹǭDZǴ. Its reference to chief priests and scribes fearing the people (ѧёѯѵ appears closer to Luke 22:2: “the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death; for they were afraid of the people” (˩ǸDZǤDZάǯǶDZǥ̽dzǶͅǯǭǣ͆ǯ neither Mark 14:1 nor Matthew 26:5 include this phrase). Note also that both Judas and Luke use the imperfect tense, in contrast to the aorist in Matthew 21:46. The verb DzǣdzǣǶǧdzdzǧΝǯ is also used in the Synoptics in connection with Jesus’ enemies. Judas’s description of scribes plotting against Jesus is again closer to Luke: in Mark 3:2 only the Pharisees plot against Jesus, while Luke 6:7 has Pharisees and scribes (cf. Luke 20:19–20). For further allusions to Luke-Acts in Judas, see notes to 36.1–4; 38.7–11; 38.14–15. If Judas was composed in the mid-second century, it would be one of the earliest witnesses to the use of Luke-Acts among Christians. 58.19–22 they approached Judas and said to him, ‘What are you doing here? You are a disciples of Jesus.’: The interrogation of Judas Iscariot here resonates with the episode of Peter’s denial in the canonical Gospels. Cf. Mark 14:66–70; Matthew 26:69–75; Luke 22:55–59; John 18:17.

Appendix C

Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos I. Dicolon a) Pause (? = unclear usage; possibly a line filler): 1.2, 1.7?, 2.5 (before ȝљ), 2.6, 3.16 (?), 3.23, 8.11, 10.20, 11.6, 12.16, 12.20, 12.23?, 12.25, 13.3, 14.21, 14.22 (before completive infinitive introduced by љ), 14.24 (before completive infinitive introduced by љ), 15.14?, 15.21, 15.24, 17.1, 18.21, 19.16?, 20.7?, 20.11, 20.11 (before ȝљ), 21.22, 21.24, 22.19?, 22.22, 23.5, 23.13, 23.22, 24.5, 25.15 (after vocative), 25.18 (before interrogative), 25.25 (after vocative), 26.3, 26.5, 26.7, 26.8, 26.9, 26.13, 26.21, 27.6 (after vocative), 27.23, 28.4, 28.21 (after vocative), 33.11?, 34.20, 35.11, 35.23 (before ȝљ), 35.24, 36.18 (before ȝљ), 38.5, 38.21, 38.22, 39.27, 40.12, 40.13, 40.14, 43.12 (before ȝљ), 45.14 (after vocative), 45.16 (before completive infinitive), 45.20, 45.20, 47.23, 48.13 (before completive infinitive), 50.12, 50.15, 50.20, 51.6 (before completive infinitive), 52.15 (before ȝљ), 54.7 (?), 57.25, 58.20 (before ȝљ), 59.11, 59.16 (before ȝљ), 59.20, 60.10, 60.11, 61.18 (before ȝљ), 62.14, 62.19 (before ȝљ), 62.23, 63.16 (after vocative). b) Full stop (? = unclear usage; possibly a line filler): 2.2, 3.7, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.25, 3.27, 4.26, 6.3, 7.3, 8.2, 9.4, 9.8, 10.5, 10.15, 10.24, 11.9, 11.15, 11.23, 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 13.1 (change of speaker), 13.4 (change of speaker), 13.6, 13.9, 14.15, 14.23, 15.6, 15.7, 15.10, 15.13, 15.20, 15.22, 16.2 (change of speaker), 16.15, 16.25 (?), 16.27, 17.2, 17.16, 18.2, 18.4 (change of speaker), 18.8, 18.16, 19.6, 19.10, 19.21, 20.6 (?), 20.25, 21.5, 21.6, 21.12, 21.15, 21.16, 21.18, 21.20, 22.4, 22.14, 22.15, 22.18, 22.20, 22.23, 23.13, 24.10 (before ѷѯѷљ), 24.16, 24.19, 24.24, 25.13, 25.16, 25.17, 25.22, 26.15, 26.19, 27.4 (change of speaker), 29.6, 29.9, 30.4, 33.9?, 33.13, 34.22, 35.10, 35.13, 35.14, 35.17, 36.9, 36.15, 36.17, 36.21, 36.23, 37.6, 37.20, 38.11 (followed by two diplai), 39.3, 39.5, 39.7, 39.11, 39.25, 40.5, 40.15, 40.18, 40.23, 42.17, 43.25, 44.13, 44.17, 44.18, 45.1, 45.7, 45.12, 45.22, 45.24, 46.18 (before ekthesis on 46.19), 47.1, 47.24, 48.5, 48.9, 48.21, 48.26, 51.23, 52.4, 52.6, 52.8, 52.9, 52.10, 52.11, 52.23, 52.25, 53.16, 53.17, 56.8, 57.10, 58.12, 57.15 (before ekthesis), 60.22, 61.22, 62.9, 62.12, 62.15.

Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos

c) Line filler: 1.7, 3.1, 3.4, 5.1, 11.23, 13.20, 17.9, 17.26, 19.22, 23.19, 25.9, 27.15, 27.19, 28.12, 34.18, 35.8, 35.16, 39.7, 39.21, 40.23, 44.26, 45.23?, 45.24?, 47.25, 47.26, 48.3, 48.6, 48.7, 49.25 (after 2 diplai), 50.2, 52.3, 53.8, 54.5, 55.6, 56.5, 57.6, 61.4, 61.14, 61.15, 61.23.

223 22.24, 40.19, 49.23, 57.11,

d) Unclear usage: 8.11, 60.19, 64.22, 65.16, 66.12, 37.13.

II. Blank Space (2 = two character spaces) a) Pause (? = unclear usage; possibly unusable papyrus): 1.4 (2–3 before epistolary ѽёѣѳљ), 14.7 (1 after vocative), 23.19, 26.25, 37.8, 43.21, 43.22, 52.5?, 56.21?, 33.3?. b) Full stop: 13.23, 14.21, 18.14, 34.11 (change of speaker), 34.13 (change of speaker), 43.10, 44.23, 46.20, 47.16, 52.21. c) Section divider: 29.25 (3), 44.14 (4, before ekthesis), 58.9 (2–3). d) Unusable papyrus: 3.22, 3.23, 5.4, 13.5, 21.27, 25.27, 26.27, 27.24, 27.25, 27.26, 27.27, 28.4, 28.24, 28.25, 28.26, 28.27, 35.3, 39.3, 47.4, 47.5, 47.6, 47.7, 47.8, 48.5, 48.6, 48.7, 51.1, 51.2, 51.4, 51.5, 51.6, 51.7, 52.1, 52.2, 52.4, 52.5, 52.6, 52.7, 52.8, 52.16.

III. Dicolon and Blank Space (2 = two character spaces) a) Pause: 43.20 b) Full stop: 9.1, 9.7, 14.6 (change in speaker), 16.21, 25.25 (2, change of speaker), 27.9 (change of speaker), 28.26 (2, change of speaker), 34.6 (to change of speaker), 35.21?, 39.15 (2), 39.21, 43.23, 47.18, 47.26, 49.5, 50.18, 52.14, 53.7, 53.10, 53.22, 54.15 (2), 56.11 (4), 59.25, 60.19, 60.23 (2), 61.9, 61.16 (2) c) Section divider (before ekthesis): 39.17 (4), 54.12 (5), 55.22 (3), 55.25 (8–9), 56.11 (3).

224

Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos

IV. Diplai (2 = two diplai, etc.) a) Full stop: 3.5 (obelismene), 11.19 (obelismene), 14.25 (3, obelismene), 18.11 (2), 24.26 (3), 36.26 (4), 38.11 (2, after dicolon), 40.16 (2, may mark the end of direct speech introduced by ȝљ on 40.15), 56.25 (6, to fill the line and begin a new sentence at the top of page 57?). b) Section divider: 11.7 (3–4; concludes Jesus’ discourse on the ‘One Who Is’ that began at 10.8, where there is a coronis in the left margin), 19.2 (7; conclude Jesus’ discourse on his suffering that began at 18.4), 25.14 (3–4 + obelismene; concludes Jesus’ long discourse that began at 19.21), 26.10 (3 + obelismene; concludes Jesus’ discourse that began at 25.15), 40.26–27 (6 + obelismene; conclude Jesus’ interpretation of the disciples’ dream that began at 39.18 in ekthesis), 46.4 (2 + obelismene, followed by ekthesis on 46.5; concludes the dialogue between Jesus and Judas that began on 44.15 in ekthesis), 47.13 (3; marks the transition into Jesus’ narrative of creation from 47.14 ff.), 61.24 (3 + coronis in left margin; marks the section of Allogenes’s prayer where he asks for and receives divine illumination [61.25–62.18]). c) Line filler: 5.5, 11.26 (2), 13.8, 13.22 (2), 15.22, 19.5, 21.3, 21.7, 25.12 (2), 26.26, 27.3, 28.13 (2), 29.4 (2), 33.20, 33.27 (?), 38.8 (4), 38.19 (2), 38.23 (2), 40.6, 40.7, 42.5 43.5, 43.8, 43.26 (obelismene), 45.25 (?), 45.26 (2; obelismene), 46.1, 46.3 (2), 46.20 (2), 47.10, 48.13, 48.16, 49.10, 49.25 (2, before dicolon), 50.7 (2), 50.13, 53.14 (obelismene), 53.25 (obelismene), 54.11, 61.19, 62.1, 57.26, 58.15, 59.4, 59.7, 59.24, 65.20 (3, obelismene). d) End of tractate: pages 9, 30, 58. e) In left-hand margin (46.11–16), perhaps to ‘highlight’ the passage.1 f) Unlcear usage: Page 20: A diple obelismene appears below the column on the left-hand side, perhaps to mark the page as special since it contains the important questions and answers one is to learn in order to bypass demonic powers during ascent. Page 46: A series of diplai run below the column with spaces inbetween, despite the fact that the text on the final line does not end a sentence but continues onto the top of the next page. These diplai may have been a  

1 On the various uses of diplai in ancient manuscripts, see Kathleen McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1992), 7–16.

Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos

225

device for making the page easy to find in the codex, presumably because of its passages in ekthesis and the diplai “highlights” on lines 11–16 (see IV e). Page 51: A series of diplai and a diple obelismene appear below the column. These may mark this page as special due to the passage in ekthesis.

V. Ekthesis In some lines, the scribe copied the first character or two beyond the lefthand margin so that they stand-out visually on the page. The usage of ekthesis in CT is ambiguous but appears to be deliberate. It likely marks passages which the scribe considered to have special content (see discussion in Chapter 4): 12.13, 12.18, 19.17, 25.2, 26.11, 28.21, 39.18, 44.8, 44.9, 44.15, 46.5, 46.19, 51.18, 54.13, 54.16, 55.23, 55.26, 56.12, 57.16, 57.22, 64.23. VI. Coronis (ĝ) 10.8–9, coincides with the beginning of Jesus’ theological discourse to James about “the One Who Is.” 61.23–24 (note diplai closing line 24), coincides with the beginning of Allogenes’s prayer for illumination (61.25 ff.).

VII. Paragraphus ( — ) What looks like a paragraphus bar (horizontal stroke) appears in the right margin at 28.19–20. It may have been used to mark the change in speaker from Jesus to James in this passage, though why only here remains unclear. VIII. Diagonal Bar ( ࡴ ) 13.26, 15.27, 17.28: the bar marks characters which the scribe copied beneath the column, aligned to the right, evidently in order to avoid copying them at the top of the next page.

IX. Supralinear Dots These dots mark dittography over ѩŶѱѱѯѷџѳѣѯѫ (11.26).

226

Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos

X. Suspended nu The scribe suspended nu at the end of the line at 7.2 (țҁҁŶ) and 55.13 (ѫŶёѣҁŶ), and probably 42.17 (țёѩџ, where the supralinear stroke over eta is absent or faded).

XI. Ligature hook Some consonants, and in one case the vowel џ (28.2), appear to have a back-hook or apostrophe protruding from the upper right-hand corner. Such hooks are found in contemporaneous Coptic manuscripts, and may have been a means of marking verbal articulation points for the reader:2 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.7, 4.9, 5.5, 5.8, 6.5, 8.2, 9.5, 9.8, 10.9, 10.14, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.19, 11.21, 11.22, 13.16, 13.24, 14.1, 14.8, 14.16, 14.19, 14.21, 15.20, 15.21, 15.23, 16.1, 16.5, 16.7, 16.8, 16.23, 16.26, 17.23, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, 18.8, 18.21, 19.7, 19.23, 20.8, 20.14, 20.18, 21.7, 21.16, 21.17, 22.6, 22.21, 22.24, 22.25, 22.26, 22.26, 23.10, 23.12, 23.23, 24.12, 24.25, 25.20, 27.8, 27.10, 27.18, 27.22, 28.1, 28.2, 28.2, 28.9, 28.20, 29.2?, 33.1, 33.19, 34.11, 34.23, 36.4, 36.11, 37.22, 37.26, 41.7, 44.20, 44.22, 44.23, 45.9, 45.11, 45.13, 46.25, 47.5, 52.4, 53.11, 56.12, 58.11, 60.7, 60.12, 60.15, 61.7, 61.8, 61.8, 61.12, 61.21, 62.1, 63.15, 63.19.

  2

For discussion of ligature hooks, see the comments by Wolf-Peter Funk in Le tonnerre, intellect parfait (NH VI,2), ed. Paul-Hubert Poirier (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995), 14ff; Louis Painchaud and Wolf-Peter Funk, eds., L’Écrit san titre: Traité sur l’origine du monde (NH II,5 et XIII,2 et Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1]) (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995), 30–34; Alexander Böhlig and Frederik Wisse, eds., Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2: The Gospel of the Egyptians (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 2ff.; and the comments by Frederik Wisse in Birger Pearson, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex VII (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 6–7.

Appendix C: Scribal Marks in Codex Tchacos

227

XII. Nomina Sacra ǼџƩѵ

9.2, 9.12, 12.18, 19.21, 33.2, 34.13, 34.22, 35.21, 36.10, 36.16, 36.23, 37.21, 39.6, 39.18, 41.1, 41.13, 42.6, 43.15, 43.26, 44.14, 44.18, 46.19, 47.2, 53.10, 53.18, 54.13, 54.15, 55.14, 55.21, 55.24, 58.6.

ѱƩѫƩё 26.5, 26.7, 26.8, 26.9, 26.10, 26.24, 26.25, 35.7, 37.19, 43.19, 47.9, 49.12, 49.16, 50.8, 53.17, 53.20, 53.23, 53.25, 54.5, 59.20 ѣƩѵǼƩѵ 1.1, 8.2, 8.8, 16.26, 17.20, 19.10, 46.8, 53.8, 53.16, 58.22 ȝƩѵ

21.11, 40.24, 59.17, 62.6

ѱŶѫŶƩȡ 39.22, 59.17 ǼƩѧƩџƩѩѡƩѣѧƩџƩѩ 11.24, 23.19, 24.17, ѱљѽƩѵ3 52.6 ѣџƩѧ [55.9]

 

It may alternatively read ѱљȝƩѵ for ȝѯљѣѵ, but it would be the only instance of the plene form of the article on this nomen sacrum in the Codex. See note in Appendix B. 3

Bibliography Aland, Kurt, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Vol. I: biblische Papyri. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976. Assmann, Jan, “Königsdogma und Heilserwartung. Politische und kultische Chaosbeschreibungen in ägyptischen Texten” in David Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. 2nd edition; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983, 345–377. Athanasius, De Incarnatione, ed. Robert W. Thomson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Attridge, Harold, “Valentinian and Sethian Apocalyptic Traditions,” in Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 173–211. Aulén, Gustaf, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. A.G. Herbert. New York: MacMillan, 1956. Bagnall, Roger, Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. –, Early Christian Books in Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Barns, John W., G.M. Browne, and J.C. Shelton, eds., Nag Hammadi Codices: Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage of the Covers. Nag Hammadi Studies 16. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Baumeister, Theofried, Martyr Invictus: Der Märtyrer als Sinnbild der Erlösung in der Legende und im Kult der frühen koptischen Kirche. Zur .RQWLQXLWlt des lgyptischen Denkens. Münster: Verlag Regensburg, 1972. Beard, Mary, John North, Simon Price, eds., Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bermejo Rubio, Fernando, “Laughing at Judas: Conflicting Interpretations of a New Gnostic Gospel” in Deconick 2009b, 153–180. Black, Matthew, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Böcher, Otto, Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970. –, Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1972. Boud’hors, Anne, “Copie et circulation des livres dans la région thébaine,” in Alain Delattre and Paul Heilporn, eds., ‘Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villages . . .’: Thèbes et sa région aus époques hellénistique, romaine et Byzantine. Brussels: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 2008, 149–61. Bousett, Wilhlem, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. *|ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907. Brakke, David, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” Harvard Theological Review (1994): 395–419.

230

Bibliography

–, “‘Outside the Places, Within the Truth’: Athanasius of Alexandria and the Localization of the Holy,” in David Frankfurter, ed., Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 445–481. –, “Athanasius,” in Philip Francis, ed., The Early Christian World. London: Routledge, 2000, 1102–1127. –, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. –, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). Brankaer, Johanna and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akadamie der Wissenschaften. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band 161. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Brankaer, Johanna, “Whose Savior? Salvation, Damnation and the Race of Adam in the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick 2009b, 387–412. Bremmer, Jan N., ed., The Strange World of Human Sacrifice. Peeters, 2007. Brown, Peter L., Authority and the Sacred. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 1995. –, Body and Society. New York: Columbia University Pres, 1998. Buell, Denise Kimber, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Campenhausen, Hans von, Spiritual Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J.A. Baker. Stanford University Press, 1969. Casey, Richard Pierce, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria. London: Christophers, 1934. Castelli, Elizabeth A., Memory and Martyrdom. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Charlesworth, Scott D., “Public and Private – Second- and Third-century Gospel Manuscripts,” in Craig A. Evans, ed., Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. London: T&T Clark, 2007, 148–175. Cherix, Pierre, “Évangile de Judas,” 2007, http://www.coptica.ch/EvJudas-tra.pdf Choat, Malcolm, Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepolis, 2006. –, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. New York: Crossroad, 1984; 2 nd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York, NY: Routledge, 1997. Cooper, John M., ed., Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. Cribiore, Raffaella, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996. –, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Crum, Walter E., A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. Daly, Robert, The Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978. Daniélou, Jean, “Les douze apôtres, et le zodiaque,” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959): 14– 21. DeConick, April, The Thriteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. New York: Continuum, 2007. –, The Thriteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. Revised edition. New York: Continuum, 2009a.

Bibliography

231

–, ed., The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Leiden: Brill, 2009b. –, “Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature,” in eadem 2009b, 243–288. Denzey Lewis, Nicola, “Fate and the Wandering Stars: The Jewish Apocalyptic Roots of the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick 2009b, 289–324. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge University Press, 1953; rev. 1968. Dunn, J. G. D., Christology in the Making. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1980. Dixon, Suzanne, “The Sentimental Idea of the Roman Family,” in Rawson 1991, 99–113. –, The Roman Family. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Dölger, Franz Joseph, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1909. Dunderberg, Ismo, “Judas’ Anger and the Perfect Human,” in DeConick 2009b, 201–221. Eddy, Samuel K., The King is Dead. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Edwards, Mark J., “Some Early Christian Immoralities,” Ancient Society 23 (1992): 71– 82. Ehrman, Bart D., The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. –, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” in Kasser et al., 2006. –, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. Emmel, Stephen, “The Christian Book in Egypt: Innovation and the Coptic Tradition,” in John L. Sharpe III and Kimberly van Kampen, The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition. The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 1998. –, “The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas” in Scopello 2008, 33–39. Ferguson, Everett, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Cambridge, UK; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Finney, Paul Corby, “Did Gnostics Make Pictures?” in Layton 1980–81, vol. 1: 434–454. Filoramo, Giovanni, A History of Gnosticism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990. Fishwick, Duncan, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. 4 vols., Leiden: Brill, 2004. Foster, Paul, ed., The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Frankfurter, David, Elijah in Upper Egypt. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. –, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Friesen, Steven J., Twice Neokoros: Ephesus and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Gagné, André, “A Critical Note on the Meaning of APOPHASIS in Gospel of Judas 33:1,” Laval théologique et philosophique 63 (2007): 377–383. Gathercole, Simon, The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Giversen, Søren, Apocryphon Johannis. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963. Good, Deirdre J., Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature. SBL Monograph Series 32. Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1997. Grant, Robert, “Charges of ‘Immorality’ Against Various Religious Groups in Antiquity,” in van den Broek 1981, 161–170. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 3. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903.

232

Bibliography

Griffith, Francis L. and Herbert Thompson, eds., The Demotic Magic Papyrus of London and Leiden. London: H. Grevel, 1904. Griggs, C. Wilfred, Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 C.E. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Grossmann, Hugo, “Ǿ ȀȅǿȃŸȃǿǹ ȉŸȃ ǻǹǿȂȅȃǿȅȃ” ZNW 20 (1921): 224–230. Haines-Eitzen, Kim, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Halliwell, Stephen, Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge University Press, 2008. Harnack, Adolph von, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan, 4 vols. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976. Hedrick, Charles W., Apocalypse of Adam. SBL Dissertation Series 46. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Hedrick, Charles W. and R. Hodgson Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986. Hedrick, Charles W. and Paul A. Mireki, The Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1999. Heyman, George, The Power of Sacrifice: Roman & Christian Discourses in Conflict. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Himmelfarb, Martha, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hurtado, Larry, “The Earliest Evidence of an Emerging Christian Material and Visual Culture: The Codex, the Nomina Sacra and the Staurogram,” in Stephen G. Wilson and Michel R. Desjardins, eds., Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Waterloo, Ontario: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 2000. –, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. –, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Jackson, Howard, “The Origin in Ancient Incantory Voces Magicae of Some Names in the Sethian Gnostic System,” Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989): 69–79. Jenott, Lance, “The Gospel of Judas 45,6–7 and Enoch’s Heavenly Temple,” in DeConick 2009b, 471–477. Jenott, Lance and Elaine Pagels, “Antony’s Letters and Nag Hammadi Codex I: Sources of Religious Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt,” in Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.4 (2010): 557–589. Johnson, William, “The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose Texts,” ZPE 100 (1994): 65–68. Jonas, Hans, The Gnostic Religion, 2nd edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.Layton, Bentley, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. trans. Thomas B. Falls. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Kasser, Rodolphe, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, eds., The Gospel of Judas. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Soceity, 2006. Kasser, Rodolphe, Gregor Wurst, eds., The Gospel of Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Soceity, 2007.

Bibliography

233

Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines. Revised edition. San Francisco: Harper, 1978. Khosroyev, Alexandr, Die Bibliothek von Nag Hammadi. Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1995. Kim, Seonyoung, “The Gospel of Judas and the Stars,” in Scopello 2008, 293–309. King, Karen L.,What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003. –, “Martyrdom and its Discontents in Codex Tchacos” in DeConick 2009b, 23–42. Klawans, Jonathan, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford University Press, 2006. Klein, Günter, Die Zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Koschorke, Klause, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nag-Hammadi-Traktate “Apokalypse des Petrus” und “Testimonium Veritatis” . Leiden: Brill, 1978. –, “Gnostic Instructions on the Congregation,” in Layton 1980–81, vol. 2. Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament. 2 nd edition. New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2000. Krosney, Herbert, The Lost Gospel. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2006. Krosney, Herbert, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, “Preliminary Report on New Fragments of Codex Tchacos,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 282–294. Lanzillotta, L. Roig, “The Early Christians and Human Sacrifice,” in Bremmer 2007. Layton, Bentley, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980–81. –, A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect. 2nd revised edition; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004. Little, Vivian Agincourt Spence, The Christology of the Apologists. London: Duckworth, 1934. Logan, Alastair, “The Tchacos Codex: Another Document of the Gnostics?” in DeConick 2009b, 3–21. Long, A. A., “Soul and Body in Stoicism,” Phronesis 27.3 (1982): 34–57. –, Hellenistic Philosophy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974. Long, A. A. and David Sedley, eds., The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press, 1987. Marjanen, Antti and Petri Luomanen, eds., A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Marjanen, Antti, “Does the Gospel of Judas Rehabilitate Judas Iscariot?” in Nicklas 2010, 209–224. Martin, Dale, Inventing Superstition: from the Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Martin, Victor and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV: P75, Evangile de Luc chap. 3–24 and Evangile de Jean chap. 1–15. 2 vols. Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961. McNamee, Kathleen, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1992. Meyer, Marvin and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Meyer, Marvin, “Judas and the Gnostic Connection,” in Kasser et al. 2006. –, “Interpreting Judas: Ten Passages in the Gospel of Judas,” in Scopello 2008, 41–55. –, “When the Sethians were Young: The Gospel of Judas in the Second Century,” in DeConick 2009b, 57–73.

234

Bibliography

Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, ed. Stuart George Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Metzger, Bruce M., Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Oxford University Press, 1981. Milne, H.J.M., and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. London: British Museum, 1938. Montserrat-Torrents, José, “La cosmologie de l’Évangile de Judas,” in Scopello 2008, 267–276. Musurillo, Herbert, Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Nagel, Peter, “Lycopolitan,” in The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz S. Atiya. New York: Macmillan, 1991, vol. 8, 151–159. –, “Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 98 (2007): 213–276. –, “Das Evangelium des Judas – zwei Jahre später,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums 100 (2009): 101–138. Newsom, Carol, “‘He has established for himself priests’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot” in Schiffman 1990, 101–120. Nicklas, Tobias et al., eds., Gelitten, Gestorben, Auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum. Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Noort, Ed, “Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel: Status Quaestiones,” in Bremmer 2007, 103–125. Norris, Richard A., ed., The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Osborn, Eric, Tertullian: The First Theologian of the West. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Pagels, Elaine and Karen L. King, Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity. New York: Viking, 2007. Pagels, Elaine, “Gnostic and Orthodox views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for the Christian Response to Persecution,” in Layton 1980, vol 1: 262–283. –, “Christian Apologists and ‘the Fall of the Angels’: An Attack on Roman Imperial Power?” Harvard Theological Review 78.3 (1985): 301–325. –, “Baptism in the Gospel of Judas: A Preliminary Inquiry,” in DeConick 2009b, 353– 366. Painchaud, Louis and Anne Pasquier, eds., Les Textes de Nag Hammadi et le Problème de leur Classification. Québec: les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995. Painchaud, Louis and P.-H. Poirier, eds., Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica: Pplanges offerts jWolf-Peter Funk. Quebec: les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006. Painchaud, Louis, “À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,” Laval théologique et philosophique 62.3 (2006), 553–568. –, “A Tale of Two Kingdoms: The Mysteries of the basileia in the Gospel of Judas,” unpublished paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA, November 2007. –, “Polemical Aspects of the Gospel of Judas,” in Scopello 2008, 171–186. Parrott, Douglas M., Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1 with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhychus Papyrus 1081: Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Pasquier, Anne, Eugnoste: lettre sur le dieu transcendant (NH III, 3 et V, 1), Commentaire. Québec: les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2010. Pearson, Birger A., Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. Leiden: Brill, 1981. –, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Bibliography

235

–, Ancient Gnosticism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, “Das Evangelium des Judas,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10 (2006): 5–14. Pratscher, Wilhelm, “Judas Iskariot im Neuen Testament und im Judasevangelium,” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 1–23. Przybylski, Benno, “The Role of Calendrical Data in Gnostic Literature,” Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980): 56–70. Rasimus, Tuomas, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of Ophite Evidence. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Rawson, Beryl, ed., Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. –, “The Roman Family,” in idem, ed., The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. Rives, James B., “Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995): 65–85. Roberts, Colin H., Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. London: Oxford University Press, 1979. Robinson, James M., “The Construction of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib, ed. Martin Krause. Leiden: Brill, 1975, 170–190. –, ed., The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Introduction. Leiden: Brill, 1984. –, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990. –, The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel. 2 nd edition. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. –, “Questions about the Tchacos Codex,” in DeConick 2009b, 547–556. Rudolph, Kurt, Die Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion. Koehler & Ameland, 1977. –, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. R. McLaughlin Wilson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984; reprint San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Sanders, Henry A., The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. New York: MacMillan, 1918. Schäfer, Peter, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Schenke, Hans Martin, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in Layton 1980–81, vol. 2., 588–616. Schenke Robinson, Gesine, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 63–98. –, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Protagonist, its Composition, and its Community,” in DeConick 2009b, 75–94. Schiffman, Lawrence, ed., Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Schoedel, William R. “Scripture and the Seventy-Two Heavens in the First Apocalypse of James,” Novem Testamentum 12 (1970): 118–129. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, The New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. McL. Wilson. 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1965. Scopello, Madeleine, ed., The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Sevrin, Jean-Marie, Le dossier baptismal Séthien: Études sur la sacramentair gnostique. Quebec: les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986.

236

Bibliography

Skeat, T.C., “The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex,” ZPE 45 (1982): 169–175. Stroumsa, Guy, La fin du sacrifice: Les mutations religieuses de l’Antiquité tardives. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2005. –, The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity, trans. Susan Emanuel. University of Chicago Press, 1999. Suggs, Jack M., “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function,” in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, ed. David Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972, 60–74. Tardieu, Michel, Écrits gnostiques: codex de Berlin. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984. Tertullian, Opera. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 2 vols. Turnholt: Brepols, 1953– 1954. Thomassen, Einar, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians”. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Till, Walter, Koptische Dialektgrammatik. 2 nd edition; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1961. Townsend, Philippa, Eduard Irichinshi, and Lance Jenott, “The Betrayer’s Gospel,” in The New York Review of Books, vol. 53 (10), June 8, 2006: 32–37. Townsend, Philippa, “What is this Great Race? The Meaning of Genea in the Gospel of Judas.” Unpublished paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, California, 2007. Turner, E. G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971. –, The Typology of the Early Codex. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. Turner, John D., “The Gnostic Threefold Path to Enlightenment: The Ascent of Mind and the Descent of Wisdom,” Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 324–351. –, “Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History,” in Hedrick et al. 1986, 55–86. –, “Typologies of the Sethian Gnostic Treatises from Nag Hammadi,” in Painchaud et al. 1995, 169–217. –, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001. –, “The Sethian Baptismal Rite,” in Painchaud and Poirier 2006, 941–992. –, “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition,” in Scopello 2008, 187–237. –, “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas: Soteriology or Demonology?” in DeConick 2009b, 95–133. van den Broek, Roelof and M.J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1981. van den Kerchove, Anna, “La maison, l’autel, et les sacrifices: quelques remarques sur la polémique dans l’Évangile de Judas,” in Scopello 2008, 311–329. van der Vliet, Jacques, “Judas and the Stars: Philological Notes on the Newly Published Gospel of Judas,” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 36 (2006): 137–152. van Os, Bas, “Stop Sacrificing! The Metaphor of Sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick 2009b, 367–386. Vermes, Geza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin, 1997. Völker, Walther, Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis. 7bingen, Mohr, 1932. Waldstein, Michael and Frederick Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; IV,1 with BG 8502,2 . Leiden: Brill, 1995. Weeden, Theodore J. Mark-traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Westendorft, Wolfhart, Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg, C. Winter Universitätsverlag, 1965-1977.

Bibliography

237

Williams, Frank, “The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, its Exegesis, and its Place in Church History,” Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 371–403. –, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius, Book I (Sects 1–46). 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Williams, Michael Allen, “Stability as a Soteriological Theme in Gnosticism,” in Layton 1980–81, vol 2., 819–829. –, The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late Antiquity. Nag Hammadi Studies 29. Leiden: Brill, 1985. –, “Interpreting the Nag Hammadi Library as ‘Collection(s)’ in the History of ‘Gnosticism(s)’,” in Painchaud and Pasquier 1995, 3–50. –, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. –, “Sethianism,” in Marjanen et al. 2005, Williams, Michael A. and Lance Jenott, “Inside the Covers of Codex VI,” in Painchaud and Poirier 2006, 1025–1052. Willis, Wendell, Idol Meat in Corinth. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Wolfson, Harry A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 2 vols., 4 th revised edition; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wurst, Gregor, “Addenda et Corrigenda to the Critical Edition,” in DeConick 2009b, 503–507. Young, Frances M. The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrystostom. Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1979. –, Sacrifice and the Death of Christ. London: SPCK, 1975.

Reference Index Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:2 1:16 1:26–27 1:28 2:7 3:20 5:1–3 6:3 10:8–12

31, 81–2, 97 99 81 31, 57, 70, 100, 215 205 31–2, 70, 100, 215 215 85–6, 215 100 211

Exodus 13:21–22 14:24 20:13 24:18–25:1 33:20

204 204 58 17 53n40, 192

Leviticus 10:1 16:29, 31 18:21–22 20:2–5 20:3, 13 22:17–25 23:27, 29, 32

196 58, 198 58–9, 197 59 58 62 58, 198

Deuteronomy 5:7 11:18 32:8

58 52n37 195, 211

1 Samuel 15:22

61

2 Samuel 2:1

218

1 Kings 22:11

218

2 Kings 17:16–18 23:10

59, 197 59, 197

1 Chronicles 1:10

211

Psalms 1:6 75:4–10 89:17–27 90:10 106:37–38 112:7–9 132:17 148:14

189 218 218 100 59, 197 218 218 218

Isaiah 1:11–14 14:12–14 53:1–12 64:3 (LXX)

61 194 15 74

Jeremiah 6:20–21 7:1–15 32:35

61 61 59, 197

Daniel 8:9–11 10–12 10:13 11:13 12:1

194 80n32 195, 211 218 195, 211

240

Reference Index

Hosea 6:6

61

Micah 5:6

211

Amos 5:21–24

61

Zechariah 12:10–14

28n61, 220

New Testament Matthew 4:1–11 11:25–30 13:3–23 15:23 16:18 17:2 19:28 21:24 21:46 22:10 22:30 24:30 26:5 26:69–75

107n15 79 205 190 205 14 55n47, 195 208 17, 221 196 208 28n61, 220 221 221

Mark 1:24 3:2 4:2–20 8:6 9:2 14:1 14:14 14:16 14:66–70

192 221 205 190 14 188, 221 17, 220 83n39 221

Luke 1:5 8:4–15 9:29 9:34–35 18:12 20:19–20 20:35–36 22:2 22:11 22:22 22:55–59 24:5

202 205 14 17 197 221 66 17 17, 220 25, 221 221 16

24:31–43

14

John 1 1:29 3:1–8 3:5 3:22–26 6:11 6:23 6:31–59 8:12 12:31–33 13:31 16:8–11 18:16 18:17 19:19–26 19:31–37 19:36

79 188 208 203 203 190 190 203 203 9, 220 220 9, 220 196 221 14 29 188

Acts 1:9 1:16–26 1:25 2:46

16–17 55, 194 54, 193 58, 196

Romans 1:20 1:24–32 1:32 5–6 5:12–6:14 6:1–14 6:16–19 12:1 13:1 13:14

47 58, 198 197 30n64, 101 32 9, 32, 65 66 65 209 32

241

Reference Index 1 Corinthians 2:7–9 5:7 7:29 8:16 10:18 12:28 15:5 15:50

74 188 218 79 199 40 42 208

2 Corinthians 4:4 5:1–8 11:14–15

79 208 64

Galatians 1:4 2:6 3:27 4:3 4:9

9 42 32 55n44, 193 193

Philippians 1:1 2:5–6

40 79

Colossians 1:15–17 2:8 2:11–15

79 55n44, 193 32n70

2:13–15 2:14 2:20

9n7, 27 29 193

1 Timothy 2:9–10 4:7

9 48

2 Timothy 1:20

9

Hebrews 1:2–3 2:14–15 7:27 9:11–28

79 9, 22 25n54 25n54

1 John 3:8

9

Revelation 1:7 1:20 5:5 8:3–5 9:1 12:12 18:8–19 19:19–21 21:14

220 194 9 67n79 194 9 28n61, 219–20 28n61, 219 42

Ancient Authors & Texts Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles 8 208 Allogenes (CT) 59.26–60.13 128 60.15–23 128 61.7 128 Allogenes (NHC XI) 69.17–19 105n11

Apocalypse of Abraham 17:11–19 210 19:9 55n44 21:1 58, 198 22:2 58, 198 23:12–13 211 24–25 58, 198 29 218 30:5 58, 198 Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V) 64.12–28 217 65.9–13 217 67.4–9 217 67.10–14 100

242 67.10–27 70.17–18 75.5–8 76.14–15 76.21–27 77.1–3 81.16–19 85.22–24

Reference Index 205 216 216 34 216 27n58 210 217

Apocalypse of Paul (Latin) 11 211 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 4:4 211 Apocryphon of John BG 32.4–5 76 32.8–9 76 33.9–10 77 40.5–9 213 NHC II 4.10–11 75 5.5 210 6.2–3 210 6.13–20 76 7.11 76 7.16–17 76 7.19–20 76 7.30–8.28 77 7.30–9.16 81 7.24 76 8.4–8 77 8.9–17 84 8.32 210 9.14–23 33n71 10.28–11.4 214 10.29–33 213 11.4–6 215 14.13–24 100, 215 14.23 210 15 217 20.9–28 217 25.23–26.7 52–53 26.22–27.30 33n71 NHC III 11.4–7 76 11.5 71n2, 76 11.10–11 76 11.19 71n2

12.1 16.20–24 NHC IV 11.7–8 11.11–12 12.15

77 213 76 76 77

Aristides Apology 2

42, 47

Ascension of Isaiah 8.27–9.20 208 9.8–9 208 Athanagoras Embassy 24.2–5

211

Athanasius Contra Arianos 2.69 21 On the Incarnation 9.1–10 21 10.30–40 22 20.34 22 Barnabas, Epistle of 2 25n54 5.6 19 7 25n54 7.3 19 21 189 3 Baruch 14

67n79

ben Sira 17:2 17:17

100 195, 211

1 Clement 1–3 9:1 13:1 14:1–2 15:1 16:3 19:2–3 20:2–3, 11

44 44 44 44 48 15 49 49

243

Reference Index 21:6 23:1 37 40:1–5 41:1, 3 44:1–3 44:3–6 46:5–48:6 54 57:1–2 62–63

44 49 44 45 45 45, 47 44, 46 44 44 44 44

Clement of Alexandria Excerpts of Theodotus 76–78 32n70 25 55, 193 81.3 55n44, 193 Stromata I 163.6 204 VI 105–106 67 VI 107.2–3 67 Didache 1:1 2:2 5 8:1 10:6

189 201 201 196 46

Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III) 138.11–16 209 Diognetus, Epistle to 2:5 50, 191 1 Enoch 1:4 10:1 14 14:2 12:3 12:6, 9 14–15 14:10–11 14:21, 24 15:1 18:11–12 18:13–16 20:4 21:5

216 216 35 216 216 220 67n79 207 53, 192, 208 192 204 194 194 194

21:7–10 23:4 46:4–6 53:5 62:8 62:9–12 69:3 71:5–11 72:1 75:1–3 79:6 80:6 85:1–3 90:21 93

204 194 219 219 208 28, 219 195 208 195 195 195 195 195 218 218

2 Enoch 22:8–10

208

Epiphanius of Salamis Panarion 26.17.8–9 121 38.1.2–5 36 38.3.1–5 36 39.1.2 121 39.5.1 105n11 40.1.3–5 121 40.2.2 105n11 48.4.7 124 Epistula Apostolorum 24 205 Eugnostos the Blessed NHC III 82.7–83.10 87 83.10–20 89 84.1–11 90 84.12–85.3 89 84.14–17 84 84.14–85.9 93 88.21–89.8 89 NHC V 10.13–11.22 87 12.23–25 84 12.24–25 89 Eusebius Preparation of the Gospel 15.18.2 92n59

244

Reference Index

Gospel of Judas 33 7, 13, 29, 47 34 15, 47, 49 35 15, 49, 51, 54, 70n1, 75, 79 36 54 37 54n42, 56 38 56 39 56 40 29, 64–68 41 55 42 55 43 88, 101, 124 44 29–30, 101 45 35, 55, 88, 91 46 54n23 47 54n23, 70n1, 71n2, 74, 85–86 48 70n1, 80, 82–85, 98 49 70n1, 85–86, 89, 98 50 86, 89 51 70n1, 95–96, 126 52 70n1, 95–96, 100, 126 53 73–74, 101 54 49, 57, 73–74, 101, 126 55 29–30, 49, 55, 73–74, 101, 129 56 8, 13–14, 23, 27, 29, 31–32, 54n23, 55, 73, 101 57 8, 16–17, 27, 32, 55, 73, 101, 129 58 16, 54n23 Gospel of the Savior 107:57–60 190 Gospel of Thomas 9 205 17 75 1QHabakkuk 8:3–13 12:2–9

62 62

Heracleon Commentary on John 46 50n33, 191

Hesiod Works and Days 213–247 188–89 Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition 20–22 129 Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC II) 87.11–27 100, 215 93.8–9 77, 210 94.4–13 211 95.4–5 216 97.10–13 29, 220 Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit NHC III 40.14 75 41.5 75 49.1–4 79, 209 49.8–10 210 51.18–19 77 55.6 76 55.13 84 56.6–57.1 210 56.22–59.9 95–96 56.26 79 57.11 79 58.7–22 214 59.1–9 100, 215 60.3 76 62.14–27 34 63 207–8 63.4–64.4 27 63.18 206 65.5 84 65.17–18 27 66.1–8 27 67.22–24 27 68.16 76 NHC IV 61.8–9 210 69.4–5 95n66 73.27–29 34 Ignatius of Antioch Ephesians 5:2–3 46 6:1 46 13:1 46

245

Reference Index 20:2 Magnesians 3–4 4 6–7 6:1 13 Philippians 4 7:2 Romans 2:2 Smyrnaeans 7:1 8:1–2 Trallians 2:2 7:2 13:2

46 46 46 46 46 46 46, 50 46 200 46 46 46 46 46

Irenaeus Against the Heresies 1.6.3 201 1.24.4 18n31 1.29.1–4 71 1.29.1 76 1.29.2 77 1.29.4 77 1.31.1 36, 71 3.1–3 47n25 3.2.2 69n83 3.12.1 193 3.12.12 69n83 3.13.1 69n83 5.20 204 James (CT) 10.21–27 12.13 12.18 20.6 21.4–22.15 26.11 Jubilees 5:8 15:31–23

126 126 126 124 126 126

Justin Martyr 1 Apology 39 42 Dialogue with Trypho 35.6 199 40 25n54 Lactantius Divine Institutes 7.18.3 106n13 Letter of Peter to Philip (CT) 3.18–4.21 126 6.3 124 Livy Histories 39.8.4, 7, 9 39.9.4 39.10.7, 8 39.11.7 39.12.4 39.13.10, 11 39.15.14 39.16.2–5 39.17.7 39.18.4

59, 198 59, 196 59, 198 59, 198 59, 198 59, 198 60n60 59, 198 59, 198 59, 198

Lucian A True Story 1.32 2.3

199 199

Martyrdom of Carpus 6 50n33 Martyrdom of Polycarp 2 75 Marsanes (NHC X) 2.12 206 6.17–20 84 11QMelchizedek 2.10–11 80

100 195, 211

Melchizedek (NHC IX) 2.5–11 27 3.9–11 22 5.2–11 22

246 6.3–5 6.24–7.5 16.7–9 16.11–18.7 17.11–19 26.2–9

Reference Index 77 26, 203 26 27 77 27

Melito of Sardis Paschal Homily 5 25n54 8 19 44 25n54 46–47 19 66–67 19–20 100 20n37 Minucius Felix Octavius 8.4 196 Mishna Berakoth 4–5 191 Norea (NHC IX) 27.11–15 75 28.6 76 28.27–28 77 Origen Commentary on Matthew 13.8 22 Contra Celsum 4.45 92n59 4.57 92n59 4.61 92n59 Homily on Exodus 5.4–5 32n70 In Matthaeum commentariorum series 100 14, 190 Philo of Alexandria Allegorical Interpretation I 31 31 On the Confusion of Tongues 34 195 174 195 On Creation 69 18, 218 134 31n69

On the Eternity of the World 3 92 9 92 On the Giants 6 206 Questions and Answers on Genesis 4 31n69 19 31n69 78 205 On the Posterity of Cain 10 205 42 205 124–5 205 On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 2 195 5 195 Special Laws I 167 62 257–98 62 Plato Gorgias 521–2 Laws IV 716d–e Phaedrus 246e Timaeus 39b 40a–41a 41d–42b 45a 69c

218 61 195 92n58 217 204 17–18, 218 18, 218

Pliny the Elder Natural History 2.110 91n55, 204 Plotinus Enneads II.3.3.13–14

219

Plutarch De defectu oraculorum 416d–417b 196 De Iside et Osiride 12, 355–6 91n55 De superstitione 171 51, 191

Reference Index Porphyry Life of Plotinus 16 105n11 Ps.-Clementine Homilies 2.23 93n62 Ptolemy Letter to Flora 5.13 197 Sefer Hekhalot (3 Enoch) 12:5 80 Seneca De beneficiis 1.6

61

Sibylline Oracles 2.157 220 3.185 58, 198 3.596 58, 198 3.635–7 219 3.663–4 219 3.672–4 204 3.762–5 58, 198 Sophia of Jesus Christ (BG) 90.15 214 Tertullian Ad uxorem 6.1 60 Against Marcion 4.3.2 69 4.20 21 Against Praxeas 27 20 Against the Valentinians 6 48n28

247

On Baptism 9.9 32n70, 129 On the Flesh of Christ 5 20–21 14.5 80 Prescription Against Heretics 20.1–6 43 32 43 34 210 36.1 55n47, 195 41 41 Testament of Asher 6:2 58, 197 Testament of Judah 25:1 195 Testament of Levi 3:7 67n79 Testament of Solomon 8:1–2 55n44, 193 18:1 55n44, 193 Theodoret of Cyrrhus Haereticarum fabularum compendium 13 76n15 Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII) 38.35–39.5 77 39.13–17 84 43–44 29n62 44.8–28 220 49.7–15 214 49.12–14 27n58 Zostrianos (NHC VIII) 4.25–31 206 51.17–18 77 58.21–2 216

Index of Modern Authors Aland, Kurt 122 Arndt, William F. 65 Assmann, Jan 28, 219 Attridge, Harold 29 Aulén, Gustaf 8–9 Aune, David 189

Collins, John J. 80 Colson, F.H. 62 Cooper, John M. 61 Cribiore, Raffaella 117, 122 Crum, Walter 15, 48, 52, 58, 76, 189, 194–6, 202–3, 210, 216, 219

Babbit, Frank C. 51 Bagnall, Roger 115–17, 122 Baker, J. A. 42 Barc, Bernard 211 Barnard, Leslie W. 42 Barnes, Timothy D. 120 Barns, John W. 105 Basore, J. W. 61 Bauer, Walter 65 Baumeister, Theofried 124 Bermejo Rubio, Fernando 49 Bethge, Hans-Gebhard 7, 30, 33, 64–5, 82, 86, 88, 91–2, 102, 119, 124, 128, 135 Black, Matthew 53, 192 Böcher, Otto 32, 129 Böhlig, Alexander 226 Boud’hors, Anne 116–17 Bousett, Wilhlem 91 Brakke, David 44, 120, 125–6 Brankaer, Johanna 7, 30, 33, 64–5, 82, 86, 88, 91–2, 102, 119, 124, 128, 135 Bremmer, Jan N. 59, 197 Brown, Peter 61, 125 Browne, G. M. 105 Buell, Denise Kimber 34

Daly, Robert 38, 66 Daniélou, Jean 55 DeConick, April 2, 7–8, 23–4, 36, 38–9, 55, 57, 65, 71, 102, 188–9, 191, 200, 207–8 Delattre, Alain 116 Denzey Lewis, Nicola 55, 191, 204 Descourtieux, Patrick 67 Desjardins, Michel 122 Dixon, Suzanne 60–1 Dodd, C. H. 79 Dölger, Franz Joseph 32, 129, 197 Doutreleau, Louis 76, 193 Dunderberg, Ismo 52 Dunn, J. G. D. 79–80

Campenhausen, Hans von 42, 45–7 Casey, Richard P. 55 Castelli, Elizabeth 38 Charlesworth, Scott D. 118 Cherix, Pierre 65, 135, 189, 200 Choat, Malcolm 122–3

Eddy, Samuel K. 28, 219 Edmonds, J. M. 51 Edwards, Mark J. 60 Ehrman, Bart 12–14, 16, 23, 45–6, 50, 94 Emmel, Stephen 28, 120 Evans, Craig A. 118 Evans, Ernest 21, 69 Fee, Gordon D. 40 Ferguson, Everett 30, 32, 129 Filoramo, Giovanni 12 Finney, Paul Corby 123 Fishwick, Duncan 199 Foster, Paul 46 Frankfurter, David 28, 122, 125–8, 219 Frend, W. H. C. 46

Index of Modern Authors Friesen, Steven J. 199 Funk, Wolf-Peter 226 Gagné, André 29 Gathercole, Simon 13, 33, 65, 81–2, 91 Giversen, Søren 215 Good, Deirdre J. 93 Grant, Robert 60 Gregory, Andrew 44 Grenfell, Bernard P. 90 Griffith, Francis L. 189 Grossmann, Hugo 199 Haines-Eitzen, Kim 102 Hall, Stuart George 19 Halliwell, Stephen 48 Harnack, Adolph von 18 Hedrick, Charles W. 34, 190 Heilporn, Paul 116 Hellholm, David 28 Herbert, A. G. 8 Heyman, George 38 Himmelfarb, Martha 67 Hunt, Arthur S. 90 Hurtado, Larry 102, 118, 122–3

249

Layton, Bentley 12, 43, 72, 123, 200, 202, 209 Logan, Alastair 102, 119, 124 Long, A. A. 92, 217 Luomanen, Petri 4, 73 Mahé, Jean-Pierre 106 Marjanen, Antti 4, 25, 53, 73, 207 Martin, Dale 51 Martin, Victor 119 McNamee, Kathleen 118, 224 Metzger, Bruce M. 122 Meyer, Marvin 2, 8, 71, 88, 94, 97, 125, 135, 212 Milne, H. J. M. 119 Mireki, Paul A. 190 Montserrat-Torrents, José 22 Musurillo, Herbert 50 Nagel, Peter 18, 64, 66, 81–3, 135, 189, 190, 194–6, 198, 200–2, 220 Newsom, Carol 67 Nicklas, Tobias 25, 207 Noort, Ed 59, 197 Norris, Richard A. 20

Iricinschi, Eduard 38, 57

Osborn, Eric 21

Jackson, Howard 213 Jenott, Lance 35, 38, 57, 106, 121, 207 Johnson, William 118 Jonas, Hans 11

Pagels, Elaine 11–12, 15, 30, 33, 38–40, 50, 57, 64–5, 82, 94, 121, 211 Painchaud, Louis 11, 18, 23–4, 31, 39, 57–8, 106, 121, 192, 198, 226 Parrott, Douglas M. 89 Pasquier, Anne 93, 121 Pearson, Birger 16, 22, 26, 77, 123, 226 Plisch, Uwe-Karsten 65, 82, 135 Poirier, Paul-Hubert 31, 106, 121, 226 Pratscher, Wilhelm 12

Kasser, Rodolphe 2, 64, 71, 103–4, 110, 115, 119, 135, 189–90, 192–3, 196, 202 Kay, D. M. 42 Kelly, J. N. D. 12, 18–19, 21 Khosroyev, Alexandr 120 Kim, Seonyoung 55, 191 King, Karen L. 12, 15, 33, 38–9, 50, 57, 64–5, 82, 94, 102, 124 Klawans, Jonathan 61 Klein, Günter 42 Koester, Helmut 41 Koschorke, Klause 43 Krosney, Herbert 2, 48, 103–4, 135 Lampe, G. H. W. 65 Lanzillotta, L. Roig 60

Rasimus, Tuomas 84, 213 Rawson, Beryl 61 Rives, James B. 59–60, 197 Roberts, Colin H. 118, 122 Robinson, James 13, 105, 110, 115 Rousseau, Adelin 76, 193 Rudolph, Kurt 10, 18 Sage, Evan T. 59, 198 Sanders, Henry A. 119 Saunders, Trevor J. 61

250

Index of Modern Authors

Schäfer, Peter 79, 211 Schenke, Hans-Martin 72, 214 Schenke Robinson, Gesine 2, 7, 16–17, 29–30, 72, 75–6, 79, 81, 135, 188, 190, 192, 220 Schiffman, Lawrence 67 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 41 Scopello, Madeleine 7, 39, 79, 188, 211 Sedley, David 92 Sevrin, Jean-Marie 30, 39 Sharpe, John L. III 120 Shelton, J. C. 105 Skeat, T. C. 115, 119 Smith, Richard 125 Stroumsa, Guy 26, 38 Suggs, Jack M. 189 Tardieu, Michel 213 Thomassen, Einar 33 Thompson, Herbert 189 Thomson, Robert W. 21 Till, Walter 194, 209, 214, 216 Townsend, Philippa 30, 38, 57 Turner, Eric G. 108, 110, 112, 115 Turner, John D. 4, 7, 30, 72, 75–7, 79, 81, 84, 86, 88, 91, 94, 99, 121, 131, 134–5, 188–9, 212–13

van den Broek, Roelof 60 van den Kerchove, Anna 57, 60 van der Vliet, Jacques 54, 94, 135, 193, 207, 213–4 van Kampen, Kimberly 120 van Os, Bas 30, 38, 57 Vermaseren, M. J. 60 Vermes, Geza 62 Völker, Walther 50, 191 Waldstein, Michael 53, 214 Weeden, Theodore J. 42 Westendorft, Wolfhart 202 Wilbur Gingrich, F. 65 Williams, Frank 11, 30, 38, 57 Williams, Michael A. 4, 27, 34–5, 51, 53, 73, 106, 121, 128, 203 Willis, Wendell 199 Wilson, R. McLaughlin 10 Wilson, Stephen G. 122 Wisse, Frederick 53, 214, 226 Wolfson, Harry A. 195 Wurst, Gregor 2, 71, 83, 86, 105–6, 108, 115, 123, 135, 129, 189–90, 192–3, 196, 202 Young, Frances M. 25, 38

Subject Index Abasement 58, 198 Abelard 9 Able 4, 96 Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles 41n11, 106n13, 193 Adam – body of 32, 70, 97, 131, 215 – earthly 3, 8, 31, 70, 85, 96, 100–1, 175–9, 192–3, 205, 215–17 – heavenly: see Adamas – lifespan of 73, 100–1, 177 – see also Race of Adamas 33, 70, 80–5, 87–8, 94, 167, 209–10, 215 Adônaios 96, 175, 213 Aeon: see Realm(s) Akressina 96 Alexander, Patriarch 120 Alexandria 75, 104, 119 Allegory 62 Allogenes 105, 126–9 Allogenes, Book of (CT) 105–7 Allogenes (NHC XI) 4n2, 73n9 Altar 23, 38, 56, 58, 63, 147–53, 198 Amulets (see also Magical Papyri) 127, 213 Androgyny 85, 87–88 Angel(s) 28–9, 35, 53, 55, 80, 90, 94, 96–8, 100, 153, 159–61, 167, 185, 192, 194–5, 202, 206, 208, 211, 215 – apostate 8, 40–1, 68, 70, 74, 79, 90, 93, 95, 100, 131, 173, 195, 199, 204, 211, 217 – equality with 63, 66–8, 151, 201 – four angels of Autogenes (see also Luminary) 71, 74, 77–8, 85, 165 – of the nations 90, 195, 211 – of the Presence 80 – races of (see Race)

– twelve angelic rulers 173, 204, 212 – see also Priesthood, angelic Anger 37, 49, 51–3, 54n42, 56, 139, 183, 219 Anselm 9 Antiquities trade 1, 2, 103–4 Apatheia 51–3, 67 Apelles 210 Apocalypse of Peter (Coptic) 18n31, 40 Apocalyptic 8–9, 35, 68, 191 Apologists 40 Apophatic theology 75, 78 Apostles (see also Twelve Disciples) 40, 67, 126–7, 195 Apostolic Constitutions 41n11 Apostolic succession 6, 41, 45–6, 54, 131 Archeir Adonein 96 Archon: see World ruler Archons/rulers (see also Demons) 24n50, 96–7, 163, 173, 206, 208–9, 217 Aristides 42, 47 Aristotle 51 Arius 120 Armozel 77 Artaba 117 Asceticism 66–7 Askew Codex 91n55 Astrological powers: see Stars Asyndeton 16 Athanasius 21, 75, 120, 124–5, 130 Atheism 51, 191 Athôth 96, 212–14 Atonement (see also Redemption) 8, 10, 55 Autogenes 70–1, 74, 76–80, 82–6, 88, 91–2, 96–9, 165, 192, 209, 216–17

252

Subject Index

Bacchanalian cult 59, 60n60, 198 Baker 153, 203 Baptism 27, 30–2, 36, 43, 57, 74, 101, 128–131, 181–3, 203–4, 208 Barbarism 57, 59, 197 Barbelo 48, 51, 70n1, 75, 77–9, 98, 141 Barnabas, Epistle of 19 Basilides 18n31 Belias 96 Beloved disciple 53 ben Sira 79 Berlin Codex (BG 8502) 115n24, 120–1, 213–14, 217 Bibles, ancient 116–17 Bishop(s) 3, 40–1, 44–5, 64, 67, 119, 121, 126 –monarchial 46 Blood 95, 98, 173, 210–11 Bodmer Codices 115n24 Bodmer Library 134 Body, Bodies 31, 34, 51, 62, 65, 101, 124, 130, 157, 205, 208 – as prison 18 – as tomb 18 – as vehicle of soul 17–18 – of Adam: see Adam, body of – of Jesus (see Jesus, body of) Books, ancient 121, 124 – production and cost 115–17 – titles 107n16 Bruce Codex, Untitled Treatise in 4n2 Cain 4, 96 Calendar 90, 91n55, 93 Canon 5–6, 120 Carpus, Saint 50n33 Cartonnage 105 Chaos and the Underworld 70–1, 93–4, 96–8, 131, 173–5, 179, 214, 217 Chastity 60 Child: see Jesus as Christology 11, 16, 18, 130 – see also Docetic – pneumatic 18–19 – two-natures 3, 10, 17–22, 29, 36, 218 Christus Victor 7, 9, 11, 20–1, 26, 36 Church – apostolic 3, 23–5, 31, 38–43, 59–60, 62–4, 66, 68–9, 200, 203, 205 – Catholic 119, 124

– leadership (see also Clergy) 1, 3, 37, 40, 44, 62, 68–9, 131, 191 – meetings of 37, 41, 44, 46, 62 – in Egypt 119–125 Clement of Alexandria 55 Clergy 3, 6, 40–1, 43–5, 62, 64, 67, 69, 119, 131 Cloud 16–17, 74, 79, 85, 94–5, 98, 100, 128, 165–171, 185, 209–10, 215, 220 Codex Sinaiticus 116n27 Codicology 102, 108–117 Corinthian church 44–5, 64 Coronis sign 118, 128, 225 Corpus Hermeticum 12n12, 107, 129 Cosmos 71, 91–92, 171 Crucifixion of Jesus 1, 2, 10, 13, 16, 21, 37, 39, 102, 123, 131, 188 – iconography of 5, 122–3, 129 Cult 57, 62, 91n55 – of Martyrs: see Martyrdom – minister (Ǧǫ̾ǬDZǯDZȍ) 63–4, 66–8, 151, 199–200 – of Twelve disciples: see Church, apostolic Cyprian of Carthage 19 Day of Atonement 58, 198 Deacon (see also Cult, minister) 40–41, 44, 47, 67 Death (see also Mortality) 3, 9, 11, 20–1, 25, 32, 45, 80, 88, 90, 101, 123–4, 127, 205, 217–18 – of Jesus (see Jesus, death of) Decius 119 Demons 3–5, 8–9, 29, 32, 36, 39–40, 50n33, 51, 94, 101, 124–6, 129, 131, 191, 203, 205, 208, 214, 220 Determinism 101 Deucalion 216 Devoted crowd 23, 38, 56–7, 147, 196 Dicolon 117–18, 222–3 Didache 41n11, 46 Diplai 106, 110, 117–18, 224–5 Diocletian 119 – Edict on Maximum Prices 116n27 Disciples: see Twelve Disciples Docetic, Docetism 10–12, 17, 22, 29, 36, 121, 130, 218 – phantasmal 13–15 – separationist 13, 15–16

Subject Index Dream – of Judas 35, 53n40, 206 – of the Twelve 23, 37, 53n40, 56, 145– 9, 200, 206 Egypt, Egyptians 1, 3–5, 20, 102, 104, 115, 119, 121, 123, 125–7, 134 – see also Church, in Egypt Ekthesis 118, 126–7, 129, 225 El 94–5 Eleleth 71, 94–5, 97, 173, 210 Elements (ǵǶDZǫǹǧΝǣ) 54–5, 143, 193 Encratic marriage 201 Epiphanius of Salamis 36, 105n11, 121 Eschatology 8, 28–9 Esephech 78n27 Eucharist 2, 3, 10, 37–41, 44, 46–9, 51, 54–5, 57, 130, 139, 191 Eugnostos 71, 82, 84–7, 90, 93 Eve 3, 31, 70, 96, 100, 175, 193, 215– 17 Evil, problem of 4 Excommunication 121 Fasting/abstention 56, 58–9, 63, 65, 147, 151, 196–7, 201 Fate 201 Fire 95, 153, 173, 210–11 – pillar of 155, 204 Firmaments 70–1, 82, 87–90, 92–3, 211 First Human 171, 210, 215 Flesh 19–20, 22, 205, 208 Flood 31 Fornication 58, 63, 65–6, 151, 179, 198, 200 Fountain 153, 203 Fruit 157–9, 204–5 – of Adam’s great race 7–8, 28, 33–34, 101, 185, 220 Gabriel 95, 177, 216–17 Galila 96, 213 Gamaliel 95 Ginza (Mandaean) 12n12 Gnosis (see Knowledge; Gnosticism) Gnostic(s) 4, 60, 75, 92, 102, 119–120, 122, 124, 129, 130 Gnosticism 1, 2, 10–12, 91, 97, 121, 131

253

God(s) 8–9, 20–1, 24, 40, 44–6, 53, 57, 61–3, 66, 70, 76, 80, 94, 97, 122, 124, 128, 130–1, 177–9, 192, 199, 208, 211, 216–17 – false (see also Nebro; Saklas) 3, 23, 37–8, 39, 41, 48–50, 54–7, 66, 68, 78, 90, 100–1, 139, 141, 149–151, 191, 194, 199, 214–15 – Greco-Roman 40, 50n33, 51, 73, 199 Gospels – canonical 1, 9, 14, 16–17, 25, 29, 107, 188, 221 – Gnostic 3 Guest room (ǬǣǶ̾ǭǷǮǣ) 17, 187 Hadrian 42 Harmas (Hermas) 96, 213 Harmathôth 96, 175, 212–13 Harmoupiael 96 Hasmoneans 62 Hekhalot 211 Heracleon 50n33 Heresiologists 130 Heretics 43 Hermes Trismegistus (see also Corpus Hermeticum) 106 Hippolytus 19 Holy Man 126 Homioarcton 209 Homosexuality 56–9, 63, 65–6, 147, 151, 198, 201 Horn of Judas 183, 218 House: see Temple Humanity (see also Races, human) 68, 73, 94, 126, 130, 175, 207 – archetype(s) of 70 – creation of 97–101 – salvation of 3, 7–8, 11–12, 20–1, 25, 36, 37, 44, 137 Idolatry 40, 58, 198 Ignatius of Antioch 15, 19, 44, 46–7, 50, 62, 69, 200 Image of Adam’s great race 7n3, 33 Immortal Man 89 Invisible Spirit 70–1, 73–80, 83, 89, 97– 98, 130, 192, 216–17 Irenaeus 5–6, 15, 19, 36, 47n25, 71, 75– 76, 131–2, 201, 204 Israel 122

254

Subject Index

James, brother of Jesus 124, 126 Jerusalem 42, 57, 122 – church in 42 – see also Temple, Jerusalem Jesus 1, 6, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 54, 70, 73, 122, 137 – ascension of 16–17, 42, 68 – body of (human person) 8, 10–13, 15– 24, 32, 54n42, 124, 130, 183, 218 – as child 14–15, 137, 189–190 – descent of 10–11, 19, 22, 126 – divine being/spirit of 15–19, 23, 130 – incarnation of 10, 12, 18–21, 22, 130 – laughing, 2, 8, 39, 47–50, 139, 159, 181 – name of 23, 30–1, 56, 63, 68, 74, 101, 129, 147–9, 179–183, 199–200, 204, 208 – passion and death of (see also Crucifixion; Sacrifice of), 3, 8–13, 16, 19–30, 32, 36, 38–9, 41, 48, 55, 57, 123–4, 130, 132, 188, 203, 218 – resurrection of 13, 42 – transfiguration of 14–17 Jews 11, 25, 40, 58–59, 187, 197–8, 201 John of Patmos 42 John son of Zebedee 42, 132 Judas Iscariot 1, 2, 4–8, 13, 17, 23–5, 27, 35, 37, 43, 48, 51–4, 70, 73, 75, 101, 137, 141, 177–188, 193, 206, 209, 219–20 – place of 54, 141, 193 Judea 43, 47, 137 Justin Martyr 42 Kings 145, 176, 185, 195, 217, 219 Kingdom 54, 84n41, 141, 157, 161–3, 177, 192, 205, 216 Kingless Race: see Race Knowledge 8, 10, 13, 130, 179, 217 Kollemata 115 Lamp 153, 203 Laughter (see also Jesus, laughing) 48n28 Law: see Torah Laymen 40–41, 45 Lazarus 20 Levites (see also Priesthood, Levitical) 45

Ligature 117, 226 Liturgy 37, 44–6, 50, 118 Livy 59 Logos 12, 14–15, 20–2, 79–80, 214 Luminaries 70, 169, 192 – four luminaries of Autogenes (see also Angels, four of Autogenes) 71n2, 77, 80, 82 Magical Papyri 125 Manilius 201 Marcion 6, 15, 69, 210 Marcionism 12 Martyrdom, Martyrs, 3–4, 38, 57, 59, 123–5, 200 – cults of 120, 124 Matthias 43, 54, 193 Meirothoe 79n28, 209 Melchizedek 80 Melitius, Melitians 120, 124 Melito of Sardis 19–20, 130 Metatron 80 Michael 80, 177, 216 Molech 59 Monks 126 Moon 81–2, 161 Mortality 100–1 Moses 17, 31, 52, 53n40 Mourning – of angels 8, 28, 185, 219–20 – of Judas 54, 141, 163, 193 Mt. Sinai 17 Muratorian Canon 195 Murder 38, 56–59, 147, 198 – of children (see also Sacrifice, child) 63, 65–6, 151, 179, 200 Nag Hammadi 10, 12, 110, 115, 120–1, 123 National Geographic Society 5, 2, 23, 134 Nebro/Nebrouel 71, 79, 90–1, 94, 95, 98–9, 126, 173, 210–12 Nebu 90–91 New Testament 2, 9, 25, 36, 116, 118, 121, 127, 188 Nicea, Council of 21 Nimrod (Nebrod) 99, 211 Noah 216 Nomina Sacra 5, 122–3, 129, 214, 227

Subject Index Ohio fragments of CT 31, 66, 107, 123n50, 134 Oracles 125, 127–8 Orgies 59 Origen 14–15, 21 Oroiael 95 Orthodoxy 3, 5, 13, 22, 36, 130 Oxyrhynchus 90, 119 Pagans 11, 25, 40, 50, 198 Papyrus 108–117 Paragraphus 118, 225 Paschal lamb 188 Passover 29, 137, 188 Patriarchal theology 79–80, 215 Patronage 40, 120 Paul 9, 32, 36, 40–2, 58, 64–5, 68, 74, 101, 198–9, 208 Pentacost 58 Perfect Human 51–53, 56, 141, 210 Perishable 91–92, 171 Persecution 4–5, 102, 119, 123–4 Peter 42, 53, 68, 193, 205, 221 Philo of Alexandria 18, 31, 52, 62, 79, 92, 195, 205 Pistis Sophia 91n55 Plato 17, 52, 61–2, 97, 204 Platonism 35 Plotinus 201, 219 Plutarch 50–51, 91n55, 191 Porphyry 105n11 Presbyters 40–41, 45–6, 67, 119, 121 Priest(s) 45, 63–4, 66–7, 196, 202 – chief 17, 18n31, 187–8, 221 – high 45 – twelve disciples as 2, 3, 23, 37–9, 44, 56–61, 131, 147–9 Priesthood – angelic 67 – Levitical 44 Prophets 40 – Hebrew 61–2 Ptolemy 197 – followers of 201 Punctuation, ancient 118 Pythagoras 52 Quires 108–115 Qumran community 62

255

Race(s) – of angels 8, 27, 74, 165, 179, 185, 219 – corruptible 155 – of earthly Adam 31–2, 183 – great race of Adam (see also Fruit) 7– 9, 11, 28–9, 32–4, 39, 101, 185, 220 – holy 1, 3, 8, 35, 51–4, 56, 70, 73, 85, 87, 143, 163–5, 194, 203–4, 209 – human (see also Humanity) 1, 7–8, 31, 34, 56, 63, 66, 73–4, 88, 139, 145, 149, 157, 163, 175, 181, 199, 205, 215–17 – immovable/stable 51, 53, 153, 203 – incorruptible 155 – kingless 177, 217 – pious 63, 151 – of Seth 3–4, 33, 70, 80–1, 85, 87–9, 93–4, 205, 210 – of stars 56, 149, 199 Readers’ aids 118, 122 Realm(s) (aeon) 8, 15, 48, 51, 74–5, 128, 141, 143–5, 153, 159, 165, 171, 210 – twelve, of Autogenes 70, 80–4, 88, 90, 98, 167–9 Redemption 7, 9, 39 Repentance 88 Resurrection (see also Jesus, resurrection of) 66, 205 Ritual (see also Liturgy; Sacrifice) 1, 10, 48, 128–130, 208 – purity 61 – and morality 61–2 Roman(s) 50n33, 59, 198 – government 5, 124 – criticism of Christians 60, 197 – family ideals 60 Rome – church in 44 Sabaoth 96, 207 Sacrifice 8, 11, 40, 44, 50n33, 58, 61, 63, 65, 67, 130, 183, 196 – ambivalence toward 25–26 – animal 11, 23, 25–6, 38, 147–153, 196, 199–200, 202 – child 56, 58–60, 147, 197 – offered by disciples 3, 23–24, 38, 56, 202

256

Subject Index

– human 3, 23, 38, 57, 59–60, 131, 147, 197–8 – of Jesus, 3, 7–11, 16, 19, 21–30, 36, 39, 41, 48, 130, 203, 218, 219 – wife 56, 60, 147, 197 Saklas (see also God, false) 23–4, 29, 54n42, 66, 71, 73, 79, 90, 94–100, 126, 173, 181, 191, 204, 206–7, 212, 215–17 Satan 9, 20, 64, 127–9 Saturninus 15 Scribes, Scribal Practices 5, 17, 116– 123, 129, 214 – of the Jews 187, 221 Seneca 61–2 Seth – earthly 3–4, 217 – Egyptian 123 – heavenly 22, 27, 52, 70, 80, 85–88, 94, 169, 204–5 Sethian(s) 3–5, 10, 22, 24–7, 34, 39, 51–3, 57, 69, 71–2, 74–81, 94–5, 97– 98, 121n44, 131–2 Signs and wonders 7–8, 137 Simon of Cyrene 18n31 Socrates 52 Solidi (gold) 116–17 Sophia 72, 79, 89, 95, 97–9, 205–6, 210, 215 Souls 17, 34, 41, 49, 52, 80, 88, 101, 126, 141, 157–9, 177, 191, 205, 216– 17 Spirit(s) 74, 141, 145, 157, 165, 171, 177–9, 205, 216–17 – see also Invisible Spirit Spring 153, 157, 203 Stability 51–53, 56, 141, 203 Standing 35, 208 Star(s) 7n2, 29, 30–1, 35, 49, 55, 63, 66, 68, 81–2, 126, 129, 139, 145, 151, 155, 163, 179, 181, 185, 191, 193–5, 201–2, 204, 218 – of Judas 55, 161, 181–3, 185, 194, 207, 218–19 – house of: see Temple – race of: see Race Stoics 92, 201, 217 Strength 37, 51–3, 56, 141, 194 Suffering Servant 15 Sun 81–2, 96, 161

Super Apostles 64 Supersessionism 25–6 Superstition (ǦǧǫǵǫǦǣǫǮDZǯ̈́ǣ) 50–1, 191 Teachers 40 Temple(s) – in disciples’ dream 23, 37, 54n42, 56, 147 – Egyptian 125 – heavenly 35, 53, 67, 192 – in Jerusalem 39, 57–8, 62, 67, 196 – in Judas’s dream 35, 54n42, 161, 207 – of the stars 149, 199, 202 Tertullian 15, 19–21, 41–2, 47, 48n28, 55n47, 60, 69, 130 Thebaid 105, 116 Theophrastus 51 Thirteen, Thirteenth 163, 181, 192, 206–7, 218 Thomas 68 Torah 27, 58, 62 Tribes, Twelve of Israel 181 Triple-Male Child 78n27 Twelve Disciples (see also Priests, twelve disciples as) 1–3, 15, 23, 36–8, 41–3, 47–8, 50–8, 68, 73, 119, 131–2, 137, 139, 143, 155, 159, 188, 191, 193–5, 200, 204–6 Valentinians 33, 205 Water 153–7, 204 Widows 60 Wilderness/desert 107, 126 Will 45, 50, 191 Wives 56 Word: see Logos World ruler (Archon) 7–9, 11, 24, 27– 30, 32, 64, 101, 126, 129, 177, 185, 192, 211, 214, 216, 219–20 Yaldabaoth 94–95, 97, 173 Yaôth 96, 175, 212–14 YHWH 80, 213–14 Yôbel 96, 175, 213 Youbel 96 Youel 78n27 Zoe 100, 175, 216 Zodiac 55, 193, 204