Comments on: The Thirteenth Apostle (Rev. ed.) http://www.gospels.net/2009/06/the-thirteenth-apostle-rev-ed/ an online resource dedicated to the Gospel of Thomas and other early Christian Gospels Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:21:18 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Leon Zitzer http://www.gospels.net/2009/06/the-thirteenth-apostle-rev-ed/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Leon Zitzer Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:42:28 +0000 http://www.gospels.net/?p=927#comment-651 I am a little familiar with Dr. DeConick's work, mostly on Thomas and from some personal communication. I sense in most of the scholarly world a fair amount of hostility (not skepticism, but downright hostility) towards any positive view of Judas. What is really disressing is that there is so little attention to carefully explaining what we have in the canoical Gospels. What almost no scholar acknowledges is that Judas' betrayal is a theory, an interpretation of the texts, not a stated fact or datum. Most scholars treat the betrayal as if it were a piece of data. Elaine Pagels writes that Mark gives us "the bare fact of the betrayal". That is wrong. Mark gives us the bare fact of Judas leaving the table and returning with the authorities. Betrayal is pure interpretation, pure theory. Another theory is equally possible, if not better. The evidence supporting the betrayal theory ranges from poor to non-existent. Mark (and the other Gospels) does not use the Greek word, "prodidomi", that definitely means betray. He uses "paradidomi", which most scholars admit does not mean betray and some scholars would argue is ambiguous. Mark does not give a motive or describe any conflict between Judas and Jesus or other disciples. The bare minimum that you would expect in any story of betrayal is some kind of denunciation from the others after the deed is done. Even that is missing from Mark and all the Gospels. In short, Mark is missing every solid detail you would expect in a story of betrayal. It is quite a jump from this to go to the conclusion, "therefore, Mark is telling the story of a traitor." Mark does not even give us one unambiguously negative piece of information about Judas. It is all ambiguous. Every detail he gives could have a positive spin as well as a negative spin. What scholars have done is read betrayal and negativity into the text and then claim they found it there. The details of the real story in the Gospels are still so poorly understood and slanted in one direction only. Leon Zitzer I am a little familiar with Dr. DeConick’s work, mostly on Thomas and from some personal communication. I sense in most of the scholarly world a fair amount of hostility (not skepticism, but downright hostility) towards any positive view of Judas. What is really disressing is that there is so little attention to carefully explaining what we have in the canoical Gospels. What almost no scholar acknowledges is that Judas’ betrayal is a theory, an interpretation of the texts, not a stated fact or datum. Most scholars treat the betrayal as if it were a piece of data. Elaine Pagels writes that Mark gives us “the bare fact of the betrayal”. That is wrong. Mark gives us the bare fact of Judas leaving the table and returning with the authorities. Betrayal is pure interpretation, pure theory. Another theory is equally possible, if not better.

The evidence supporting the betrayal theory ranges from poor to non-existent. Mark (and the other Gospels) does not use the Greek word, “prodidomi”, that definitely means betray. He uses “paradidomi”, which most scholars admit does not mean betray and some scholars would argue is ambiguous. Mark does not give a motive or describe any conflict between Judas and Jesus or other disciples. The bare minimum that you would expect in any story of betrayal is some kind of denunciation from the others after the deed is done. Even that is missing from Mark and all the Gospels.

In short, Mark is missing every solid detail you would expect in a story of betrayal. It is quite a jump from this to go to the conclusion, “therefore, Mark is telling the story of a traitor.” Mark does not even give us one unambiguously negative piece of information about Judas. It is all ambiguous. Every detail he gives could have a positive spin as well as a negative spin. What scholars have done is read betrayal and negativity into the text and then claim they found it there. The details of the real story in the Gospels are still so poorly understood and slanted in one direction only.

Leon Zitzer

]]>