The Thirteenth Apostle: Revised Edition: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says

April DeConick's book is addressed to the general public, though it includes much information useful to scholars, such as her discussion of blatant misinterpretations of the Coptic by the original National Geographic team. (Some of these errors have been corrected in the more recently published The Gospel of Judas, Critical Edition; the French translation in that book is superior to the English one.) Another reviewer has offered many details of the content of the book, so I need not repeat any of them. What I would like to offer is a caveat. My care in approaching this book is the result of having just finished studying the Gospel of Judas in a graduate Coptic class, in which we not only read the book in Coptic but also read some of the scholarly literature that has come out since the rather rushed initial translation published by National Geographic. April DeConick's views are an important part of the mix. Scholars have expressed a range of views on this gospel. A majority seem to reject the National Geographic view. Other views are coming out, and Dr. DeConick's view is an important alternative view, but not the only one. Read her book but also read other literature. Articles published in scholarly journals are particularly helpful, if you have access to them. But regardless of what you read now, be aware that the study of this gospel is only two years old, and it is still in a state of rapid ferment and development. Perhaps in five years a more considered consensus may emerge, so keep your eye on it. Come back in ten or twenty years, if you can. You will see a considerable body of literature and more fully developed views. Many detailed studies of many aspects of this gospel will be needed in order to interpret it thoroughly. This just takes time, as scholars work on them in the time they have between teaching classes, which is how most of them make their living. But they are working on this gospel and will continue to do so, as the issues it raises are compelling.

DeConnick not only proposes an alternative reading of the Gospel of Judas, she also provides a readable review of Gnosticism for the novice. An excellent book!

I have just finished reading April DeConick's new book, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. So many comments need to be made directed at so many interests: The following is from my blog where I have more posts discussing the contents and argument of this book. See http://vridar.wordpress.com 1. Firstly, the book is easily accessible to the lay reader even though it discusses technical translation issues of the Coptic, as well as some of the history of the scholarship relating to the Gospel of Judas and its broader context. 2. Secondly, for most of us who have read the National Geographic translation of the Gospel of Judas, be prepared for a radical re-think of what we have read there. The National Geographic translation depicts Judas as the only true saint; DeConick's, as the arch demon himself -- or at least destined to join with him in the end. 3. Which immediately raises the question: Why would a gospel make the central character a demon? DeConick shows how the apparent structure and thematic development of the gospel aligns it with an agenda opposing that Christianity that traced its genealogy back to the Twelve Apostles. Like the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Judas was a parody and attack on apostolic Christianity and its doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. 4. Fourthly, April DeConick proposes several reasons to explain such oppositional translations: i. She explains in easy to read terms the condition of the text and possible variations in how the original Coptic could be read; ii. She suggests with Professor Louis Painchaud that since World War 2 and the Holocaust, and the widespread anti-Semitism preceding those years, there has been a powerful cultural need to absolve our collective guilt over the treatment of the Jews. And this compulsion has led us to reappraise our portrayals of the bad Jew/Judah/Judas embedded in our foundational Christian myth. So much for Maloney and Archer's collaboration on their fictional cum theological treatise of their Judas gospel! iii. DeConick even has an interesting section that surveys the different films of Jesus before and since World War 2 and compares particularly the portrayal of Judas in those pre- and those post-Holocaust movies -- in the pre-war movies he was always an evil villain through and through; in the post-war movies he has been depicted with more understanding and compassion -- a well-meaning idealist who just happened not to think the same way as Jesus; iv. DeConick gives enough information about the transmission of the text and the role of National Geographic in its initial public translation to alert the reader to possible motives and controls at work other than those normally associated with scholarly professionalism. 5. The book gives a clear overview of the nature of the Christian world in the second century, showing that Apostolic Christianity (claiming descent from the Twelve Apostles) was only one branch; othe

Does the much publicized "Gospel of Judas," released in April, 2006 by the National Geographic, truly portray a positive view of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus? Dr. April DeConick of Rice University has questioned this interpretation of the newly released text. Speaking at the Biblical Archeology Society Seminar held this past weekend in San Antonio, Texas, Dr. DeConick, who holds a chair in Biblical Studies at Rice University, summarized her conclusions based on her translation and analysis of the original Coptic text. According to Dr. DeConick the idea of a positive Judas, friend and confident of Jesus, who receives a high heavenly reward for his betrayal of Jesus, is based on a series of faulty misreadings and mistranslations of the original text. Dr. DeConick argues that the "Gospel of Judas," turns out to portray a Judas that is far more demonic than in any other piece of early Christian literature, including the traditional accounts in the New Testament Gospels. The book surveys the story of the Judas Gospel's discovery and release and includes Dr. DeConick's translation of the Coptic as well as her analysis of the translation issues upon which a positive or negative interpretation of Judas turn. It further relates the text to its historical setting, namely the thought world of an early Christian group of Gnostics known as the Sethians. Chapter 2, titled "A Gnostic Catechism," is one of the clearest expositions on Gnosticism written for the non-specialist that I have ever seen. The book also contains three invaluable appendices: A marvelously clear and complete annotated survey of "Further Reading," a synopsis of Sethian literature, and a Q & A with Dr. DeConick in which she relates her excitement at the initial publication of the text and how she reluctantly came to question its interpretation as represented in the books and documentary produced by the National Geographic Society. I highly recommend this new book and I look forward to the continued discussion of this fascinating ancient text. James D. Tabor, author, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity

Judas, the good guy? No, indeed! He is even worse than previously thought. A closer translation and a thorough knowledge of gnostic mythology, derived partially from Plato, shows him to be a secret agent of the devil. The Gospel of Judas is a parody, written by someone from the Sethian subgroup of Gnostic Christians - to make mainstream Christians of the second century look asinine for relying on a demon ruler (Judas) and his minions (the twelve) for their teachings and practices. A more specific goal of the Gospel of Judas, according to DeConick, is to blast the doctrine of atonement and the effectiveness of the eucharist, on account of Judas's involvement. Other authors rushed in to write books last year, relying on the (erroneous?) coptic translations of the National Geographic team. It will be interesting to see how this controversy falls, but I'm betting on DeConick.