Desarrollo constructivo de la iglesia: siglos xvii-xviii

One cannot but be struck by the ‘Jewishness’ of the Gospel of Judas,¹ as a number of commentators have already pointed out, especially Bart Ehrman: “It is striking that many Gnostic texts seem to be rooted in some kind of Jewish thought. A large number of them represent creative readings of the book of Genesis, for example. Not only that, some of the words and names that typically occur in these Gnostic texts appear to have Jewish roots. Just within the Gospel of Judas, for example, there is the god El . . ., the god Saklas . . ., Yaldabaoth . . ., and so on.”²

What is also striking is that the Jewish themes in this gospel are one of its most negative aspects. One of the strongest negative themes concerns ritual or prayer to a false god, in this case summed up in images inclu-ding the temple (a great house with an altar, 38,1–3), and sacrifices by priests (38,1–39,3). These unworthy sacrifices are offered to the Jewish god (Yaldabaoth/Nebro) who is the object of pious observance by the Twelve (“your god,” 34,10–11.25; “their god,” 36,4).³

One of the key themes in the Hebrew scriptures concerns the Hebrews as the people of God, with Abraham as their father. In this paper I propose that this theme can also be found in the Gospel of Judas, and in relation to the character of Judas, although in the gospel it is a negative theme. The identification of Judas with Abraham, or as an Abraham-like figure, will be made from considering the accumulation of several important concepts or images: the image of stars linked with

* University of New England, Australia. From 2008, University of Otago, New Zealand.

1 Text edition and translation from R. Kasser, G. Wurst, M. Meyer and F. Gaudard, The Gospel of Judas, together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and the Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos. Critical Edition (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic), 2007, pp.

184–235.

2 B.D. Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (New York: Oxford University Press), 2006, p. 119.

3 The possible link between Nebro and Nebroel, the female consort of Sakla(s) in the Gospel of the Egyptians, has been proposed by M. Schwartz, “From Healer to Hyle:

Levantine Iconography as Manichaean Mythology,” Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 1 (2006), p. 147, n. 3.

the idea of leadership of a race or generation, and a human sacrifice for which the leader would be responsible.

Judas and Abraham Stars and a New Race

In the Gospel of Judas stars play a key role in understanding the character of Judas Iscariot. Judas is to be ruler over the generations (46,23–24), except for that holy and kingless generation in the heavens which is not ruled over by the angels or the stars (37,1–8). In other words he is to rule the lesser generations who are ruled by the stars or cosmic powers.

Is he then himself equivalent to a star, or is he under the rulership of the stars also? It is clearly the latter when he is told by Jesus to look up to the heavens and to see the star there leading the way which is his star (57,18–20). We know also from earlier in the gospel that, despite the fact that Jesus has taught him about the error of the stars (46,1–2), nevertheless his star has led him astray (45,13–14). It is at this point that Judas understands that his generation is under the control of the rulers/archons who are the stars (46,5–7).

That Judas has been under the control of the stars is not in doubt, and that in 57,18–20 there is still a star identified as his star is also clear. What happens to Judas at the conclusion of this scene is far from clear. His star, and those stars which follow it, surround a luminous cloud (57,16–18). Judas enters the cloud but the text fails us and we know only that a voice comes from the cloud (57,23–26). Entering and leaving a cloud are not necessarily positive actions, although this scene with Judas, a cloud, and a voice that comes from it is reminiscent of the story of Jesus’ transfiguration in the canonical gospels (Mark 9:7 and parallels). That activity concerning clouds can be interpreted negatively is obvious from earlier in the gospel, where a cloud brings forth Nebro/Yaldabaoth (51,8–15).

Stars too are an important image in the story of Abraham in connection with his role as father of a new people. In Genesis 15:5 he is told: “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them . . . So shall your descendants be.” After almost sacrificing Isaac, he is again told: “I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven” (and as the sand that is on the seashore) (24:17), and Deuteronomy 10:22 confirms that the people of Israel become as many as the stars of heaven. There is no suggestion of control by the

stars here, but I make the argument only on the basis of a strong link between the image of stars and the concept of a new generation or race under the leadership of a particular figure.

Human Sacrifice

In a damaged passage where Jesus is speaking of sacrifice to Saklas, ending with words about evil, he goes on to say that Judas “will exceed all of them” because Judas “will sacrifice the man that bears” him (56,18–21). Within the Hebrew scriptures, there are few stories about the sacrifice of humans. Two victims or almost-victims are sons of the one to sacrifice them – Isaac and the first-born son of the king of Moab (2 Kings 3:27). The other victim is Jephthath’s daughter ( Judges 11:39).

Jeremiah 19:5 also mentions the burning of children in fire as burnt offerings to Baal. The story of Abraham and Isaac provides a further potential link between Abraham and Judas, but the link is weaker because Abraham does not actually sacrifice Isaac his son.

One of the remaining questions for the comparison of Judas’ sacri-fice of Jesus with Abraham’s sacrisacri-fice of Isaac concerns whether Judas’

sacrifice is to be interpreted positively or negatively. Bart Ehrman writes in relation to Gospel of Judas 56,18–21 that “Judas’s act of ‘betrayal’

is in fact his faithful obedience to Jesus’ will.”⁴ If this were so, then Judas’ action would be in keeping with the tradition of Abraham who was willing to sacrifice his own son in obedience to God. However, there is nothing in the passage to suggest whether the saying should be interpreted positively, or negatively, or simply as a statement of fact. It is quite possible to interpret, as Louis Painchaud has done, that here one should understand that Judas exceeds all others in evil; that Judas is a demon, led astray by his star.⁵ On the other hand, Painchaud’s supporting argument for a negative interpretation of the character of Judas, based on his judgment that sacrificing always otherwise has a negative connotation in the gospel, is not convincing.

Painchaud’s argument has its basis in passages in the gospel like the extended analogy between the temple priesthood and their sacrifices and the Twelve and their pious observances in the Eucharist (34,3–11):

the priests who sacrifice represent the Twelve (“It is you who are

4 B. Ehrman, Lost Gospel of Judas, p. 88.

5 L. Painchaud, “À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,” Laval théologique et philosophique 62 (2006), pp. 557–560.

presenting the offerings on the altar you have seen;” 39,18–21), the cattle sacrificed are the people the Twelve lead astray (39,25–40,1), each priest is a “minister of error” (40,22–23) who makes these sacrifices to that false god of the Twelve, and the human generation who rely on them who will be put to shame (40,25–26). However, the sacrifices in the temple are animal sacrifices, and the sacrifice of the man who bears (or ‘clothes’) Jesus is a human sacrifice. To propose to interpret both types of sacrifice in the same way may be a little simplistic. In the Gospel of Philip, for example, we are told that animal sacrifices will be replaced by human sacrifices. Gospel of Philip NHC II,3 62,35–63,4 relates that God is a cannibal: “God is a man-eater. For this reason men are [sacrificed] to him. Before men were sacrificed animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods.”⁶ Such a passage may well support a positive view of the sacrifice of Judas rather than a negative one.

Much of the argument about how to interpret Judas’ motivation for the sacrifice of the man who wears Jesus can only be decided after considering the development of the character of Judas within the entire text, and the text is not without ambiguity. While Judas shows enough strength to stand in front of Jesus when none of the other Twelve can, yet he cannot look him in the eye: “He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face away”

(35,10–14). He has a degree of power or strength but it is insufficient, and his inability to look Jesus in the eye implies then that he cannot

“bring out the perfect human” in order to stand before Jesus (35,3–4).

Although he can identify Jesus as the one from the realm of Barbelo (35,15–19), in the canonical gospels even the demons know Jesus (e.g.

Mark 5:7). Jesus offers him knowledge of the kingdom (35,24–25) but not so that he will go there (35,26), and later in the text, as we have already noted, he is told that he is led astray by his star.

If Judas’ sacrifice is to be compared to Abraham’s sacrifice, how would the Gospel of Judas understand Abraham’s sacrifice, given the negative attitude to Jewish temple practice and the Jewish god in this text? While there is nothing explicit in the gospel to give an answer to this question, we may point to other Gnostic texts, where there is

6 Translation from W.W. Isenberg, “The Gospel According to Philip,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, Vol. 1, B. Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Studies 20 (Leiden: Brill), 1989, pp. 142–215.

some ambivalence towards the figure of Abraham. There is a positive portrayal, for example, in Gospel of Philip NHC II,3 82,26–29 where Abraham’s circumcision teaches “that it is proper to destroy the flesh.”

Exegesis on the Soul NHC II,6 133,20–31 finds in Abraham, who was told in Genesis 12:1 to leave his country and kinsfolk and father’s house, a exhortatory model for the soul, fallen to earth and needing to turn back to devote herself to her king, her real lord, and to remember her Father who is in the heavens.⁷ But there are also texts like Second Treatise of Great Seth NHC VII,2 62,35–63,2 where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are said to be “a laughing stock . . . since they were given a name by the Hebdomad, namely ‘the fathers from the image’, as though he had become stronger than I and my brethen.”⁸

Finally we should consider the question of Jesus’ willingness to be a victim of Judas, as proposed by Bart Ehrman. If such is the case, this poses no real difficulty for our comparison of Judas and Abraham.

There is also tradition concerning Isaac as a willing victim, or at least one who wishes the sacrifice to go well once his father has decided to sacrifice him. John Collins points to 4Q225 as providing this extra mate-rial about Isaac and asserts that it is also “prominent in later (post-70 CE) literature, such as the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (32.2–3) and the Targum Neofiti”, where Isaac asks Abraham to bind him up properly so that the sacrifice will be a fitting one without him kicking around.⁹ Interestingly for the setting of the Gospel of Judas at the time of Passover, Geza Vermes makes the connection between 4Q225 and later rabbinic material in the Palestinian Targums that associates the

7 Translation from W.C. Robinson, Jr. “The Expository Treatise on the Soul,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, Vol. 2, B. Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Studies 21 (Leiden:

Brill), 1989, pp. 144–169.

8 Translation from G. Riley, “Second Treatise of the Great Seth,” in Nag Hammadi Codex VII, B.A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Studies 30 (Leiden: Brill), 1996, pp.

146–199.

9 J.J. Collins, “Spells Pleasing to God. The Binding of Isaac in Philo the Epic Poet,”

in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy. Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, A. Yarbro Collins, M.M. Mitchell (ed.), (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2001, pp. 3–4. The oral tradition of Ethiopian biblical exegesis, although only partly available still in written form from the end of the 20th century, also knows this extra story and adds further that Isaac is placed face down on the altar because he thinks Abraham might be overcome with compassion if he sees Isaac’s eyes blink-ing; K.S. Pedersen, “The Amharic Andemta Commentary on the Abraham Stories:

Genesis 11:24–25:14,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation.

A Collection of Essays, J. Frishman, L. Van Rompay (ed.), Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5 (Louvain: Peeters), 1997, p. 259. This tradition also has Abraham take Isaac to the mountain of Calvary, p. 260.

Aqedah (binding of Isaac) with the Passover and the lamb symbolism during the existence of the Temple.¹⁰

Judas and the Patriarch Judah

Louis Painchaud has recently argued for a link between Judas and the patriarch Judah, taking his point of departure from Gospel of Judas 46,14–47,4 where Jesus asserts that Judas will reign. He bases the connection primarily on the parallel he perceives between the question asked by Judas about the usefulness of what he has been given: “When Judas heard this, he said to him, ‘What is the advantage that I have received it? For you have set me apart for that generation’” (46,16–18) and the question asked of his brothers by the patriarch Judah about what profit there would be from killing their brother Joseph in Genesis 37:26–27.¹¹ Judah inherits the government in Genesis 49:8–10, and Painchaud refers to the rabbinic tradition that it is precisely because of the question Judah asks that he inherits the kingdom.¹² Painchaud makes the suggestion that Judah and Judas are thus linked by their governing role, the author of the gospel intentionally bringing the two figures together, with Judas becoming a kind of prince of apostles like the patriarch of the same name who inherited the kingdom. The assimilation of the two figures is completed by Judas’ governing role over the apostles and the generations to come that guarantees the continuation of the Jewish religion.¹³

I am not convinced that there is a stronger case for the link to Judah than to Abraham, on the basis of that one question from Judas, and on the grounds that Judah is a patriarch of Israel. In the canonical New Testament tradition at least, which the Gospel of Judas knows, Abraham is clearly recognized as the father of the Jewish race (e.g. Matthew 3:9;

Luke 1:55.73; 3:8; 19:9; John 8:33.37.39.53; Acts 3:25; 7:2; 13:26;

Romans 4:12.16; 9:7; 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Galatians 3:7; 3:29;

Hebrews 2:16; 7:5; James 2:21).

10 G. Vermes, “New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from 4Q225,” Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996), p. 144. See also J.C. VanderKam, “The Aqedah, Jubilees, and Pseudo-Jubilees,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, C.A. Evans, S. Talmon (ed.), (Leiden: Brill), 1997, pp. 241–261.

11 Painchaud, “À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,” p. 562.

12 Painchaud, ibid., p. 562, n. 38.

13 Painchaud, ibid., pp. 562–563.

Judas and Azazel, Abraham’s Negative Mirror Image in Apocalypse of Abraham

There is one other Abraham-like figure who may provide a way of understanding Judas. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the character of Azazel/Satan is a negative mirror image of Abraham, who also has an association with stars, a new race, and (perhaps) the sacrifice or betrayal of Jesus.¹⁴

Stars and a New Race

In the Apocalypse of Abraham, during his heavenly journey, Abraham is told to look down and see the stars beneath him (20.3). The description of this event appears to be a deliberate rereading of the Genesis story.

While Abraham is still told to look to the stars, in this case he is above them, and thus above their control. However, the imagery of the stars and their number used of Abraham’s descendants is exactly here as it is in the Genesis account. The Eternal Mighty One passes on his portion of human beings to Abraham: “And he said to me, ‘As the number of the stars and their power so shall I place for your seed the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel’” (20.5). While Philonenko interprets this verse to mean that there is one people of God who from the very beginning stand under the power of Azazel,¹⁵ it also seems possible that the verse deals with a people or race attributed to the Eternal Mighty One, as there is a people or race attributed to Azazel, within the lot of human beings as a whole.

In contrast to Abraham, the character Azazel appears beneath the stars and under their control. He is ruled by the stars, together with those who belong with him. The angel of the Eternal Mighty One commands Abraham to say to Azazel: “Go, Azazel, into the untrodden parts of the earth. For your heritage is over those who are with you, with the stars and with the men born by the clouds, whose portion you are,

14 Text and translation in R. Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham”, Revised with notes by H.G. Lunt, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), (New York: Doubleday), 1983, vol. 1, pp. 689–705; B. Philonenko-Sayar and M. Philonenko, “Die Apokalypse Abrahams,” in Apokalypsen, W.G. Kümmel et alii, (ed.), Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, Band 5, Lieferung 5 (Gütersloh:

Gütersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn), 1982, pp. 415–460.

15 M. Philonenko, “Die Apokalypse Abrahams,” p. 442.

indeed they exist through your being” (14.6).¹⁶ Philonenko comments about this passage that it portrays a situation of absolute determinism where the evil ones, even before they are born, are under the influence of the stars, and belong to Azazel’s heritage.¹⁷

Thus the image of the stars is used in two different ways within the text – in keeping with the tradition of Genesis that the race of Abraham will be counted as many as the stars, and in a rereading of Genesis (at least as far as the description of events is concerned) to portray the power of the stars over the race of Azazel.

Betrayal/Sacrifice of Jesus

In Apocalypse of Abraham 29.6, in a passage which remains unclear in its meaning, we have a scene involving Azazel who kisses an unnamed man, who is insulted and beaten but also worshipped by a heathen throng.

The possibility that this is a allusion to the kiss of Judas is very enticing, but as Philonenko points out in discussing G.H. Box’s hypothesis that this is a Christian addition to the text, there are a number of difficulties with this theory including that the unnamed man comes from the heathens.¹⁸ Lunt also outlines the lack of clarity in the detail – either Azazel is helping the heathen insult, beat and worship the man, or both Azazel and the man are being worshipped.¹⁹ Either way, there is nothing to interpret the kiss as a kiss of betrayal, unless a kiss that appears to be associated with worship is meant to be interpreted ironically. If this is the case then it could possibly find a parallel with the irony of the kiss of friendship given by Judas to Jesus in the canonical accounts. If the

The possibility that this is a allusion to the kiss of Judas is very enticing, but as Philonenko points out in discussing G.H. Box’s hypothesis that this is a Christian addition to the text, there are a number of difficulties with this theory including that the unnamed man comes from the heathens.¹⁸ Lunt also outlines the lack of clarity in the detail – either Azazel is helping the heathen insult, beat and worship the man, or both Azazel and the man are being worshipped.¹⁹ Either way, there is nothing to interpret the kiss as a kiss of betrayal, unless a kiss that appears to be associated with worship is meant to be interpreted ironically. If this is the case then it could possibly find a parallel with the irony of the kiss of friendship given by Judas to Jesus in the canonical accounts. If the