LAUGHING AT JUDAS Confl icting Interpretations of a New Gnostic Gospel

Fernando Bermejo Rubio

Paraphrasing Irenaeus, we could say that through Judas a lot of things have been thrown into confusion.1 Against the view championed by the National Geographic team, according to which we have in the new gospel a rehabilitated Judas and even a Gnostic hero2—and thereby something like a Copernican revolution in the view of this disciple, if not a turnabout in the study of Christian origins3—, several dis- senting voices have been raised, arguing that a gross misinterpretation has taken place, and that Judas is not to be fairly described in such a way.4 Th is alternative vision has been labelled ‘revisionist’ by Marvin Meyer.5 Although some scholars have defi antly accepted the term— Birger Pearson has said, “I am happy to count myself as one of the group that Meyer calls ‘revisionists’”6—I think that this label should be carefully avoided. First, because it presupposes that the former view is a consolidated and normative approach, which is obviously not the case here. Not only was the alternative approach proposed very early (only some months aft er the fi rst publication of the text), but it is striking to speak about a one-and-a-half year old interpreta- tion as if it were a well-established tradition. Second, from a certain perspective, ‘revisionism’ is a label which could be used (and, in fact, has been used) to describe the positive view of Judas held by the edi- tors because it diverges widely from the view of Judas held secularly in

1 See Iren., Adv. Haer. 1.31, 1. I am deeply grateful to Barc, Painchaud, and Turner for letting me read some of their articles, not yet published. 2 See Ehrman 2006b, 69, 98, 136. ‘Hero’ is also the term used in Kasser et al. 2007, 24. 3 “Th is gospel [. . .] will open up new vistas for understanding Jesus and the reli- gious movement he founded” (Ehrman 2006a, 80). Th is claim is, of course, completely unwarranted. 4 See Painchaud 2006, 553–568; Pearson 2007c; Turner 2008a; DeConick 2007; Barc forthcoming. Judas would be “im Grunde eine geradezu unüberbietbar negative Gestalt” (Brankaer-Bethge 2007, 260); among a growing trend. 5 Meyer 2007b, 50. 6 Pearson 2008, 52–57, esp. 54. 154 fernando bermejo rubio the Christian tradition. Th ird, in some contexts such as the European one, this term has unmistakably pejorative overtones, inasmuch as it is associated with historical negationism such as Holocaust . For all these reasons the label ‘revisionism’ should be jettisoned. We are facing at least two interpretive , with the result that scholars are remarking what they see as anomalies in a , oft en while struggling to defend their own position by turning to immunization strategies. In this deeply contested but stimulating con- text, it is our challenge and responsibility to weigh up which of these competing paradigms is the most convincing one—unless we discover the possibility of something like a tertium quid.7 Among the many ambiguous elements in the text, there is Jesus’ laughter.8 Th is element has indeed a conspicuous presence in the new gospel, where Jesus laughs four times.9 Some scholars think that this laughter shows Jesus’ benevolence and friendliness towards his dis- ciples,10 while others hold an opposing view.11 Given that these refer- ences are little more than obiter dicta, my aim is to take a closer look at the passages where Jesus laughs, in order to shed some more light on this topic.12

7 We are of course only beginning to understand this fragmentary text. What would we think today of a scholar who, writing in 1960, would claim to be expressing the last word on Gos. Th om.? We all should remind ourselves that future generations will laugh at our hasty judgments, and we should be accordingly cautious. 8 ambiguities included Judas’ nature (is he a spirit or a devil?), the meaning of the expression “mysteries of the kingdom” (does it refer to the demiurgical or to the transcendent realm?), the character entering the cloud at the end of the Gospel (does Judas or Jesus enter it?), and so forth. 9 Gos. Jud. TC 34,2 ff .; 36,22 ff .; 44,19 ff .; 55,12 ff . On this issue, see Bermejo 2008, 331–359 (see also the contributions by Most and Robinson in Scopello 2008). 10 “Se trata siempre de una ironía amistosa” (Bazán 2006, 42 n. 22). Other schol- ars think that laughter has a positive meaning, insofar as through it Jesus urges his disciples to higher spiritual vision. See Pagels-King 2007, 126–8: “Whenever Jesus laughs in the Gospel of Judas, he is about to correct errors in someone’s thinking. In this instance, Jesus’ laughter is a kind of ridicule or mockery intended to shock the disciples out of their complacency and false pride;” also Krosney 2006, 286: “Jesus [. . .] is a friendly and benevolent teacher with a sense of humor.” 11 “His laughter is actually the scornful laughter oft en evident in Gnostic litera- ture—the laughter of one who is actually detached from the world, who stands above it in supercilious and mocking contempt” (Gathercole 2007a, 167). Scholars holding the view of a non-Gnostic Judas have also referred to laughter as disparaging and ironic; see Painchaud 2006, 566; DeConick 2007, 140. 12 When I tackled the issue of laughter for the Paris Conference (2006) I knew the editors’ interpretation, but I had not put it into question, nor was I aware of the existence of an alternative view. I remarked and stressed, however, the extent to which Jesus’ laughter did not seem to have a positive and joyful meaning. Here I will tackle