A Proposed Reading of Gospel of Judas 33:18–21

“IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN”: A PROPOSED READING OF GOSPEL OF JUDAS 33:18–21

by David Brakke

More than a decade after its publication, the enigmatic Gospel of Judas continues to raise perplexing questions about its purpose, meaning, and original context. Among its persistent mysteries is a strange word in the opening description of Jesus’ ministry: When he (Jesus) appeared on earth, he performed signs and great wonders for the salvation of humanity, while some people also were [walking] in the way of righteousness and others were walking in their transgression. And the twelve disciples were called, and he began to speak with them about the mysteries that are above the world and the things that will happen until the end. But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ you would find him in their midst (ⲟⲩⲏⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ [ⲛ]ⲥⲟⲡ ⲙⲁϥⲟⲩⲟⲛϩϤ ⲉⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ ϣⲁⲕϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲩⲙⲏⲧⲉ) (33:6–21)1.

This section, which I will refer to as the prologue, follows the obscure first sentence (“The secret report of judgment, in which Jesus spoke with Judas Iscariot eight days prior to the three days before he celebrated Passover”; 33:1–6) and precedes a series of dialogues between Jesus and his disciples or between Jesus and Judas. On the one hand, it appears to be a simple summary of Jesus’ mission and his calling of the disciples. On the other hand, it poses several questions, above all, what the last sentence means. Neither Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ nor ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is otherwise attested, whether in Sahidic — the dialect of our text has been described as a kind of older Sahidic with variations of a possible Middle or Lower Egyptian origin2 —

1 Throughout I use and sometimes modify the critical edition of the Coptic text in Jenott, Gospel of Judas, here p. 136. He emends ϣⲁⲕϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (“you would find him”) to ϣⲁⲩϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (“he would be found”), a possibility that I discuss below. I am grate- ful to Bentley Layton, who discussed this problem with me at the beginning of my work. For their criticisms and corrections of earlier versions, I thank Stephen Emmel, Nathan Hardy, Kelly Holob, Margaret Mitchell, Sofia Torallas Tovar, and the other participants in the Early Christian Studies Workshop at the University of Chicago; and the journal’s anonymous reviewers. 2 Kasser, “Étude dialectale.”

Journal of Coptic Studies 22 (2020) 45–67 doi: 10.2143/JCS.22.0.3287545 © 2020 by Peeters. All rights reserved. 46 DAVID BRAKKE or in another dialect. Although it is possible that it represents a completely new and unknown word, scholars have offered proposals that treat it as a corruption of or newly attested form of an already known word. The most widely accepted suggestion is that ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ means “child,” and thus the sentence reads, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, you would find him as a child in their midst.” This hypothesis has several attractive features, but even its proponents acknowl- edge that there are reasonable arguments against it. In this essay I survey and assess four proposed solutions to this hapax and offer a new proposal. I agree that ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ most likely means “child,” but I take Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ to be an article phrase with the plural definite article (“the children”), which functions as an extraposited term in anticipation of the personal element of the possessive article ⲧⲉⲩ- of “in their midst.” The sentence thus means, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, you would find him in the midst of the children.” Understood thus, the statement provides an appropriate segue to the following scenes of Jesus arriving and departing, and it announces the contrast between the ignorant disciples and those who belong to the “great and holy race,” which the reader is invited to join.

Proposed Meanings for ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ

I shall discuss four proposed meanings for ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ that have received significant scholarly support3. Ideally a solution to the problem will make sense grammatically, will require as few transpositions of letters or other corrections as possible, and will be exegetically meaningful, that is, will create a reading that enhances the understanding of the immediate passage and of the gospel as a whole. The four proposals vary in how close they come to that ideal, but they all construe the Ⲛ- in Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as adverbial, creating either a phrase that describes a manner in which Jesus is found in the disciples’ midst that contrasts with (ⲁⲗⲗⲁ) his revelation of himself to them or a clause that explains why Jesus often does not reveal himself to them. Most commentators have supported understanding Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as “as a child,” which was one of two solutions that the original editors offered4. According to this hypothesis, ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is a form of the Bohairic ϧⲣⲟϯ

3 I shall not record the choices of all previous commentators, nor shall I attempt to cite every scholar who has made the arguments I survey, but only the earliest known to me or those that make an argument most fully. 4 Kasser et al., Gospel of Judas 185. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 47

(“child, young”)5. Alternation between ϩ and ϧ (as well as between ⲧ and ϯ) across differing dialects is well attested, and Crum reports an instance of the spelling ϧⲣⲟⲧ. The great advantage of this proposal is that, in addition to the stories of Jesus as an infant and child in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and in the so-called Infancy Gospel of Thomas, other early Christian writings (especially so-called “gnostic” ones) feature the appearance as a child of the mature or resurrected Jesus, an unnamed savior, or another divine revealer6. These other writings include the Gospel According to Thomas, the Acts of John, and a reported vision of Valen- tinus7. The most important parallel occurs in the Secret Book According to John, where the disciple describes the initial appearance of the savior: “Behold, a child (ⲁⲗⲟⲩ) [appeared] to me, and [it changed] the likeness to an old person”8. The Gospel of Judas shares mythological details and other features with the Secret Book, so that most scholars classify both as “Sethian” Gnostic works9. In general, polymorphism characterizes a variety of early Christian views of Jesus, including those of Origen, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostle, as well as The Acts of John; the canonical gospels contain hints of the risen Christ’s polymorphism in scenes in which the disciples do not at first recognize him (e.g. Luke 24:16)10. From another perspective, an allusion to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, a widespread model for understanding Jesus in the first and second centuries, has been proposed: “He was like a child (ὡς παιδίον)” (Isaiah 53:2)11. This reading, then, fits well in the gospel’s second-century context, supports its presentation of Jesus as free enough from his fleshly body to appear and disappear at will (and presumably in different forms), and parallels another significant Sethian work with which Judas shares theological and probably sectarian affiliation.

5 Crum, Coptic Dictionary 631a–b. 6 Nagel, “Das Evangelium des Judas” 239–240 n. 71. 7 Gospel According to Thomas 4, in Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 380; Acts of John 88, in Pervo, Acts of John 38–39; Refutation of All Heresies 6.42.2 = Valentinus, “Fragment A,” in Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 230. 8 Apocryphon of John BG 21:3–5. 9 Turner, “Sethian Myth”; Meyer, “When the Sethians Were Young”; Schenke Robinson, “The Gospel of Judas”; Brakke, “Gospel of Judas.” 10 Foster, “Polymorphic Christology.” 11 Jenott, Gospel of Judas 15. More than one scholar has proposed as a possible parallel the so-called Gospel of the Savior preserved in P. Berol. 22220, where Jesus says to the disciples, “I am [in] your midst [like] a child (these children?)” (ⲉ[ⲓϩⲛ]ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛ[ⲑⲉ] ⲛⲛⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣ[ⲏⲙ]) (107:26–28). Alin Suciu, however, has convincingly dated this work to the era after the Council of Chalcedon (Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon, Coptic text at p. 151), and the reference here is likely not to Jesus’ visual appearance but to his humble demeanor. 48 DAVID BRAKKE

On the other hand, there are objections to this proposal. First, Crum reports that ϧⲣⲟϯ is attested only in the plural, with the sole exception being an instance of the singular in a Demotic magical papyrus, where it is used for the child Horus12. Second, for the meaning “as a child,” one might expect the presence of a definite article (Ⲛⲟⲩϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ) or a different construction altogether (e.g. ϩⲱⲥ, Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛ-, or ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ Ⲛ-). In his Coptic Grammar Layton describes several ways in which adverbs are formed with initial Ⲛ-13. Those formed with zero article phrases (like Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ) tend not to mean “as a …” (ὡς) but to convey a manner of acting that corresponds to the noun’s meaning: e.g. Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ “greatly”; Ⲛϩⲁⲉ “finally”; Ⲛϫⲓⲟⲩⲉ “by stealth.” Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is more likely, then, to mean “childishly” than to mean “as a child.” An example from Nag Hammadi Codex XIII has been adduced as an instance of “as a …” without the indefinite article: ⲉⲓϣⲟⲟⲡ Ⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ (NHC XIII 49:19– 20)14. But when it follows ϣⲱⲡⲉ/ϣⲟⲟⲡ†, Ⲛ- with a zero article phrase is a form of predication: thus, “I am everyone’s parent,” not “I exist as a parent for everyone”15. Moreover, one might object to the word order in Coptic; that is, one might expect Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ to follow ⲉⲣⲟϥ if it is to describe Jesus’ state when he is found (although possibly the word order reflects that of the original Greek). Finally, Jesus does not appear as a child anywhere in the gospel; Jesus’ childlike appearance — and what its significance might be — does not receive any additional treatment, and thus it is not clear why it would be mentioned at all16. The original editors proposed a second possibility, which has also found subsequent support: that ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is a Sahidic form of the Bohairic noun ϩⲟⲣⲧϥ, meaning “phantom” or “ghost”17. In that case the sentence means, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, you would find him as a phantom in their midst.” This possibility has at least two arguments in its favor. First, Jesus does in fact come and go from

12 Santos and Ubierna, El Evangelio de Judas 127. They suggest that the scribe of Codex Tchacos may have believed that its use for the child Horus made it an appropriate word to use for Jesus. 13 Layton, Coptic Grammar §217. 14 Jenott, Gospel of Judas 15. 15 Other examples: ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲡⲓⲥⲕⲁⲣⲓⲱⲧⲏⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲡⲣⲟⲇⲟⲧⲏⲥ (Luke 6:16) “Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor”; ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲁϥ ⲘⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ ⲚⲛⲁϩⲣⲘⲡⲗⲁⲟⲥ (Acts 13:31) “Now they are his witnesses before the people.” 16 Cf. Jenott, Gospel of Judas 190; Sandul “Judas Iscariot” 36. In contrast, the savior’s appearance as a child at the beginning of the Secret Book According to John anticipates both his self-identification as “the father,” “the mother,” and “the child” (II 2:13–15) and the divine triad of the Invisible Spirit, the Barbēlō, and the Self-Originate. 17 Crum, Coptic Dictionary 704a. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 49 the disciples in the manner of a phantom or ghost throughout the gospel. His departures do not seem to be instances in which an embodied Jesus simply walks away and so can be followed, for the disciples must ask him, “Teacher, where did you go? What do you do after you have left us?” (36:13–15) The phrasing suggests that such mysterious departures are a regular occurrence. Near the end of the gospel, at the conclusion of the series of dialogues, Jesus enters a luminous cloud, and “Judas no longer saw Jesus” (58:5–6). And yet shortly thereafter Jesus is described as having entered “the guest room for his prayer” (58:11–12). Such is the coming and going that one expects of a phantom. Second, the phrase “as a phantom” might allude to such passages in the New Testament gospels as Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49, where the disciples mistake Jesus for a phantom18. This kind of subtle allusion is typical of Judas, which sometimes implicitly refers to the canonical gospels and seems to expect the reader to appreciate the passage better from his or her knowledge of them. The scene in which only Judas can declare Jesus’ correct identity (34:11–35:21), for example, alludes to Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:13– 20; Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–22). Although the reader can understand the scene without knowing the earlier texts, he or she will appreciate it more if he or she gets the allusion. Similarly, the concluding scene of Judas outside the guest room in which Jesus is presumably sharing the Passover with his disciples (58:6–26) presupposes the account of the Last Supper in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus sends Judas out of the room (John 13:26–30)19. Again, the reference is not explicit, but the astute reader will recognize it and so understand the gospel as supplementing or playing with John’s account. The reference to Jesus being among the disciples as a phantom may work similarly by reminding the reader of instances in the New Testament in which the disciples failed to recognize Jesus, and in this way it would contribute to Judas’s negative portrayal of the disciples. On the other hand, this proposal faces some of the same objections as “child”: the use of Ⲛ- with a zero article phrase for “as a phantom” and the placement of the phrase at the beginning of the clause. In addition, we must transpose two letters and omit the final ϥ to create the Sahidic counterpart to the Bohairic word (although Kasser reports that the spelling ϩⲟⲣⲧ without the final ϥ appears in an unedited Bohairic manuscript of

18 Brankaer and van Os, Gospel of Judas 126. 19 Emmel, “Presuppositions” 33–34. 50 DAVID BRAKKE

Habakkuk 3:10 in the Vatican20). One may question whether and how Jesus being found as a phantom in the disciples’ midst differs from him revealing himself to them, so that, as the statement puts it, often he would not reveal himself to them but instead (ⲁⲗⲗⲁ) he would be found as a phantom among them. The same verb ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ (“reveal, appear”) is used later to describe Jesus’ phantom-like appearance to the disciples (36:12). In other words, Jesus’ self-revelations to the disciples appear to be con- sistently phantom-like throughout the dialogues, during which there do not appear to be two different ways in which Jesus is present to the disciples. In response to this objection, one might argue that the first part of our sentence (Jesus revealing himself) refers to the New Testament-like ministry just described in the prologue and that Jesus is like a phantom in all the dialogues that follow. Nagel, however, questions even the rela- tively neutral understanding of “phantom” that other scholars and my discussion here have assumed: he argues that ϩⲟⲣⲧϥ does not refer to just “any kind of appearance or a simple illusion,” but carries a negative connotation of something eerie, frightening, or even repulsive; therefore, it would be inappropriate as a description of the savior21. A third possibility takes the phrase as referring not to how Jesus appears (as a child or a phantom) but to why Jesus is found among the disciples at all. By understanding ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as a variation on ϩⲧⲟⲣ (“necessity, constraint”)22, this proposal suggests that the sentence should read, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, as necessary you would find him in their midst”23. That is, the second clause explains why Jesus often does not appear to the disciples; he is with them only as necessary, presumably only as necessary for their education or enlightenment. This hypothesis creates a sentence that makes sense, and it suggests that ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is a variation on a Sahidic noun, not a Bohairic one as in the first two options. It has been suggested that the form in Judas could have been influenced by ϩⲣⲱⲧ (“wine-press, vat”)24. The construal of Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as “by necessity” or “as necessary” more closely follows the general ten- dency of adverbs formed by Ⲛ- with zero article phrases that I discussed above; presumably the Greek was something like ἀναγκαίως rather than

20 Kasser, “Étude dialectale” 69. Schenke Robinson (“Relationship” 86 n. 8) suggested that a ϥ was visible, but no other editor has seen one. 21 Nagel, “Zwei Jahre später” 115–117. 22 Crum, Coptic Dictionary 726b–727a. 23 This possibility appears to have been first proposed by Pierre Cherix in a translation made available on his web site in July 2007. It is adopted without further explanation by Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas” 208, and DeConick, Thirteenth Apostle 239. 24 Kasser, “Étude dialectale” 69; Crum, Coptic Dictionary 704b. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 51 a phrase with ὡς as the first two options require. Yet I am not aware of any attestation for Ⲛϩⲧⲟⲣ meaning “as necessary”; rather, Crum reports mul- tiple instance of ϩⲚⲟⲩϩⲧⲟⲣ. And finally, this proposal again requires the transposition of letters. A fourth proposal has not received as much support as the first three. It suggests that what is meant is ϣⲟⲣⲧ (“awning, veil”)25. Combined with the initial Ⲛ- and the zero article, it would mean something like “in a veiled way”: “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, in a veiled way you would find him in their midst.” This possibility requires both the transposition of letters and the substitution of ϩ for ϣ. ϣⲟⲣⲧ appears usually to have referred to a piece of fabric that would be used for a tent or in sailing; there is little if any attestation for its use metaphorically or even for a veil that a human being would wear26. In any event, the question then arises as to what is meant by “in a veiled way” and how it contrasts with Jesus revealing himself. In all of Jesus’ appearances in the gospel, Judas and the disciples recognize Jesus and have no problem literally seeing him; he is not visually obscured from them. Therefore, it must refer to the concealment of Jesus’ true identity from the disciples: they may physically see Jesus and know him to be Jesus, but “the true identity of the Savior is accessible only to the true disciples,” who are not the eleven in the Gospel of Judas27. Our sentence is the only time in which ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ is used in reference to Jesus with the reflexive object (“reveal himself”); two other times it has no object and so indicates simply that Jesus appeared (33:6; 36:12). Our first clause, then, may refer to instances in which Jesus does appear to the disciples, but does not reveal his true self to them. To be sure, with the exception of Judas, the disciples in this gospel do not recognize Jesus’ true identity when he appears to them, but the logic of the sentence suggests that there must be times when Jesus’ identity is not veiled from them. That is, if “many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples, but in a veiled way you would find him in their midst,” then there must be times when Jesus would reveal himself to his disciples and he would not be veiled in their midst. But if there are such times, they are not narrated in the Gospel of Judas. All of these proposals are plausible, and the choice among them may depend on which criterion the interpreter assigns the greatest weight to in assessing them. The widespread support for “as a child” suggests that

25 Dubois, “L’Évangile de Judas” 150; Crum, Coptic Dictionary 588b. 26 Nagel, “Zwei Jahre später” 117–118. 27 Dubois, “L’Évangile de Judas” 150–151. 52 DAVID BRAKKE scholars highly value resonance with related literature: early Christian works similar to or theologically related to Judas, especially the Secret Book According to John, contain the motif of the savior appearing as a child. It is not surprising to find it in a gnostic work of the second century. “As a phantom” likewise has the virtue of a possible allusion to the New Testament gospels. But these options raise grammatical questions about whether Ⲛ- with a zero article phrase can mean adverbially “as a …” (ὡς), and it is not clear that the gospel follows through on the ideas that these proposals — including “in a veiled way” — create. For example, Jesus does not in fact appear as a child in the remainder of the gospel. “As necessary” is perhaps a more grammatically plausible (if unattested) understanding of the adverbial Ⲛ- with a zero article phrase, and it argu- ably creates a sentence that makes better sense within the gospel. The scholar who weighs these factors more highly, as I do, probably finds it the best of these four options.

A New Proposal

My proposal turns away from understanding the initial Ⲛ- in Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as adverbial and instead suggests understanding Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ as an article phrase with the plural definite article and a noun — that is, “the hrots” (I leave the noun untranslated for now). In this case the article phrase would be in extraposition anticipating the personal element in the possessive article ⲧⲉⲩ-. The sentence would then mean, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, as for the hrots, you would find him in their midst.” That is, “you would find him in the midst of the hrots” or “among the hrots” rather than in the midst of or among the disciples. Extraposition is one of Coptic’s several ways to express emphasis, which include the cleft sentence and the focalizing conversion as well28. It can also aid the Coptic translator in mimicking Greek word order. In most cases the extraposited element anticipates a personal morph that is the subject or object of the main verb. In fact, an extraposited subject is highly frequent in the Gospel of Judas, with the extraposited element often followed by ⲇⲉ. Here are three examples out of many: ⲡⲉⲧⲚⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ[ⲉϥⲥⲓⲟⲩ] ⲁⲩⲁⲅⲁⲛ[ⲁⲕ]ⲧⲓ [ⲙ]ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲯⲩⲭⲏ (34:25–35:1) Your god who is within you and [his stars] have become irritated, along with your souls.

28 For the definition of extraposition, see Layton, Coptic Grammar §313; for its use with non-durative conjugation as we have here, §330. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 53

ⲓ⳰Ⲏ⳰ⲥ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲁϥⲥⲱⲃⲉ (44:18–19) When Jesus heard, he laughed. ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥϥⲓⲁⲧ⳰ϥ ⲉϩ⳰ⲣⲁⲓ (57:22) Judas looked up.

Before the appearance of new fragments in 2010, Nathalie Bosson counted at least 36 examples of the extraposition pattern ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ … ⲁϥⲥⲱⲧⲡ and only five instances of the pattern ⲁⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲥⲱⲧⲡ; she concluded that the gospel shows “a predilection for the extraposition of the subject”29. The gospel contains other extraposited terms as, for instance, an object of a preposition, a direct object, and a member of the nominal sentence30. Extraposited terms that anticipate the personal element in the possessive pronoun are much rarer, but they are attested in the New Testament and in Shenoute: Ⲛⲧⲟ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲥⲏϥⲉ ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲚⲧⲟⲩⲯⲩⲭⲏ (Luke 2:35) And a sword will pierce (come through) your soul. ⲡϩⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲚⲧⲉⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲥϣⲓ (Shenoute ed. Chassinat 28:24–26) As for the snake, its venom has its limitations.

More significantly, there is an example in the Gospel of Judas: ⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩ Ⲛϭⲓⲛⲉⲩⲯⲩ[ⲭ]ⲏ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ Ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲡ⳰⳱Ⲛ⳰ⲁ ⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ: ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲩⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲧⲁⲛϩ⳰ⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲥⲉϥⲓⲧⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ (43:15–23) The souls of all human races will die, but as for these (persons), when the time of the kingdom has been completed and the spirit separates from them, their bodies will die, but their souls will live and be taken up.

In fact, this sentence twice places a term in extraposition in anticipation of the personal element in the possessive article. The use of this construction emphasizes the distinction between two groups: “all human races” in contrast to “these,” that is, those who belong to “this race” (ⲧⲉⲉⲓⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ), which Judas mentioned in the question that immediately precedes this statement by Jesus. On the one hand, the souls of the former will die; on the other hand, although the bodies of the latter will die, their souls will live and be taken up (into a realm higher than this one). I suggest that a similar

29 Bosson, “L’Évangile de Judas” 14. 30 E.g. 42:14–16 (object of preposition); 56:20–22 (direct object); 57:20–21 (nominal sentence). 54 DAVID BRAKKE distinction between two groups is being made in our sentence — between “his disciples” and “the hrots.” Often Jesus would not appear to his disciples; instead, you would find him in the midst of the hrots. A reasonable objection to this proposal concerns the spelling of the plural definite article. Normally the long form ⲛⲉ- should appear before a morph beginning with two consonants: ⲛⲉϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ31. One possibility is that the superlinear stroke indicates that the second consonant (ⲣ) is syllabic: that is, we have her|ot rather than hrot, in which case Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ would be correct. I find this possibility less likely than positing a simple orthographic variant. Throughout Codex Tchacos the scribe always uses the expected long form of the definite article (whether singular or plural) before double consonants, with two exceptions. At 20:6 we find ⲉⲩϥⲓ ⲛⲘⲯⲩⲭⲏ (“they carry the souls away”); cf. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲧϥⲓ Ⲛⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ (“those who carry the soul away”; 21:22). On page 30, ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲛⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ Ⲛⲛⲉⲕⲣⲓⲧⲏ[ⲥ] (“they brought him to the judges”) in line 7 is immediately followed by ⲡⲉϩ[ⲟ]ⲩⲟ ⲇⲉ ⲚⲚⲕⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ (“but most of the judges”) in line 8. These two examples show that, although our scribe knew that he should use the long form of the article before two consonants, he could use the short form, whether in error or for some other reason that made sense to him. This objection therefore does not appear fatal to this hypothesis, which has other advantages over the existing proposals. If my proposal to understand Ⲛ- as the plural definite article is correct, who or what are the hrots? Here I believe that we can return to our four previously suggested possibilities for understanding the word ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ, all of which are plausible candidates for words of which ϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ could be a newly attested variation. Of these four, “children” is the best candidate: it is unlikely that we will find Jesus in the midst of the phantoms, the necessities, or the veils. If we take Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ to mean “the children” rather than “as a child,” we avoid two of the major objections to the latter possibility: that the Bohairic ϧⲣⲟϯ, with a single anomalous exception, is always attested in the plural, and that “as a child” might normally be expressed in ways other than using Ⲛ- and a zero article phrase. The sentence would then mean, “But many a time he would not reveal himself to his disciples; instead, you would find him in the midst of the children.” If, as I hope I have shown, this hypothesis is grammatically possible and perhaps even more probable than the existing proposals, it remains to assess its exegetical implications: does it cohere with and even enhance our understanding of the gospel as a whole?

31 Layton, Coptic Grammar §52(a). “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 55

The Alternating Presence of Jesus among the Disciples and the Children

According to the translation proposed here, the final sentence of the prologue states that often Jesus does not appear to his disciples and instead is to be found elsewhere, among a group called “the children.” This statement concludes the seemingly neutral summary of Jesus’ ministry as found in the New Testament gospels: Jesus performed signs and wonders, sought to save people, called twelve disciples, and gave them teaching with theological and eschatological content. Our final sentence accurately describes what the reader finds in the remainder of the gospel up to its final scene: Jesus suddenly and mysteriously comes and goes from the disciples and, as we shall see, is sometimes with another group, “another great and holy race.” The discourse shifts to another key: we depart from ordinary activity and enter a time and space outside the framework of the canonical gospels. The gospel narrates a series of four appearances of Jesus, the last of which develops into a lengthy exchange between Jesus and Judas that can be described as an instance of erotapokriseis, that is, “questions and answers.” The same literary style can be found in the Secret Book According to John32. In Judas, the beginning and end of each appearance are usually marked by statements about Jesus coming or appearing and then about him departing, but not always. The first appearance begins immediately after the prologue with the announcement, “One day he came to (ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ … ϣⲁ-) his disciples in Judea” (33:22–24), and concludes with, “But when he (Jesus) had said this, he left him (Judas) (ⲁϥⲗⲟ ϩⲁⲧⲏϥ)” (36:9–10). The second appearance immediately follows, beginning with, “When morning came, he appeared to (ⲁϥⲟⲩ[ⲱ]ⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ … Ⲛ-) his disciples” (36:11–13). The conclusion of this appearance does not include a statement of Jesus’ departure, but describes the disciples as confused and at a loss for words (37:17–20). Yet the beginning of a third appearance is marked with, “Jesus came to them (ⲁϥⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ) on another day” (37:20–21). This appearance eventually shifts from including the disciples to including Judas alone — “And when Jesus had said these things, he left (ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ) and [took] Judas Iscariot with him” (42:22– 24) — but, after an exchange between the two, it decisively concludes: “After Jesus said these things, he departed (ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ)” (44:13–14)33.

32 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 24; see Papadogiannakis, “Erotapokriseis”; Sandul, “Judas Iscariot” 56. 33 Because there is no statement about Jesus coming or arriving before the new dialogue with Judas begins, the original editors suggested emending to ⲁⲩⲃⲱⲕ (“they departed”) 56 DAVID BRAKKE

The fourth and final appearance does not begin with an announcement of Jesus’ arrival or appearance and is more complicated than the first three. It begins simply with Judas reporting that he has seen “a great vision” that he wants Jesus to hear (44:15–18). From here there is a dialogue that appears to be between Jesus and only Judas; the absence of the disciples may explain the lack of a statement about Jesus “coming” or “appearing,” language that the gospel appears to reserve for Jesus’ conversations with the disciples. The discourse with Judas consists mostly of a mythic narrative that includes a description of the immortal realm, the origin of this world and its rulers, the creation of humanity, and the fate of human beings and the end of this realm. For the most part Jesus just speaks, but his discourse is prompted by questions from Judas, the procedure of erotapokriseis. Late in the conversation the use of the second-person plural rather than singular suggests the presence of other people in addition to Judas (54:16–17), but the singular address to Judas returns (55:12). This final appearance concludes with Jesus entering a luminous cloud: “And Judas looked up and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it. Those standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying, [‘… the] great race […’] And Judas no longer saw (ⲁϥⲗⲟ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ) Jesus” (57:22–58:7). These sentences indicate a definitive end to the series of appearances that began after the prologue: Jesus has entered a luminous cloud, and Judas no longer sees him. People are standing nearby, and a voice comes from the cloud: doubtless the reader is to be reminded of the Transfiguration scene in the New Testament gospels (Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36). We return to the more familiar, so to speak, matter-of-fact tone of the prologue, now with Jesus in the guest room and Judas betraying him; that is, we are back in the narrative world of the canonical gospels and have left the more dream-like world of the four appearances34. Most of the Gospel of Judas, between the prologue and the final scene of betrayal, takes place in an indeterminate time and space (which somehow includes Judea) distinct from the narrative world that the New Testament gospels create. In this alternative world, Jesus comes and goes at will, with only vague references to time (“one day,” “morning,”

(Kasser et al., Gospel of Judas 207), referring to the disciples other than Judas. Against this suggestion see Nagel, “Zwei Jahre später” 129–132. Sandul compares the strange transition at John 14:31–15:1 (“Judas Iscariot” 62). 34 My analysis coheres with Hartenstein’s treatment of Judas as what she calls an “Erscheinungsevangelium,” but she identifies the frame narrative as continuing through 36:10 and the dialogue proper beginning only at 36:11 (“Literarische Gestalt”). “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 57

“another day”). Here the disciples celebrate the eucharist (33:26–34:6), even though it would seem that Jesus has not yet instituted the Last Supper — or, rather, chronological correspondence with (before/after) events in the known gospels does not apply. Here too the disciples have a dream that shows them acting as priests, making sacrifices, and leading many people, a dream whose imagery resonates with late first- and second-century “proto-orthodox” language for church leaders and worship35. Although this time and space seem to be situated after the resurrection, even during the period of the nascent church, in fact we seem to be in a time and space simply apart from the narrated time of the gospels. Most commentators are not certain what to make of the time sequence reported in the incipit: “The secret report of judgment, (the report) in which Jesus spoke with Judas Iscariot eight days prior to the three days before he celebrated Pass- over” (33:1–6). These words obfuscate the relationship between the tim- ing of this “secret report” and the canonical gospels’ chronologies of the Passover and the passion narrative. Indeed, Jesus’ statement to Judas that “tomorrow (ⲣⲁⲥⲧⲉ) the one who bears me will be tortured” (56:6–8) appears to contradict the opening statement, however it is understood36. There is no logical relationship between the suspended time of the dialogues and the past time of Jesus’ ministry in the gospels. The dialogues take place in a timeless present, as the use of the “tenseless” aorist makes clear: “But many a time he would not reveal/is not revealing/does not reveal himself (ⲙⲁϥⲟⲩⲟⲛϩϤ) to his disciples; instead, you would find/ are finding/find him (ϣⲁⲕϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ) in the midst of the children”37. Although the dialogues are set within a narrative frame and mention Judea, they resemble the works that Hans-Josef Klauck calls “non- localized” (ortlos) dialogues, such as Dialogue of the Savior and Book of Thomas the Contender. These conversation seem to take place at no particular location and even at no particular time:

35 See Jenott, Gospel of Judas 44–47; Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins 78–96; Bobertz, Development of Episcopal Order 184–189. The key passages include 1 Clement 40:1–5; 41:2; 42:4–5; 44:1–3; Ignatius of Antioch, Magnesians 6:1; Philadelphians 4, 7:2; Ephesians 5:2; Smyrneans 8:1. 36 For the most recent (and inconclusive) discussion of the opening statement’s chronology, see Brankaer and van Os, Gospel of Judas 120–122. The “tomorrow” in Jesus’ statement to Judas appears in the fragments first made available in late 2009, and thus earlier scholarship could not take it into account. It possibly can be understood to agree with the proposal of Grosso, “Three Days and Eight Days,” but in my view that proposal does not explain how the eight days are “prior to” the three days. 37 Layton, Coptic Grammar §337. 58 DAVID BRAKKE

[T]here are no framework passages, a constitutive element of the genre ‘dialogue gospel’, and it is a matter of conjecture whether these works intend to relate conversations with the risen Jesus. At most, the mention of the ascen- sion in LibThom [Book of Thomas the Contender] points in this direction; in Dial [Dialogue of the Savior], on the other hand, a number of elements suggest rather that the conversations take place during the life of the earthly Jesus. It is, however, also possible that Dial ultimately aims at the kind of supra-temporal quality which is typical of EvThom [Gospel of Thomas]38.

The vague chronological (“supra-temporal”) character of the dialogues in Judas suggest contemporaneity with the implied reader in the second century, when communities that invoked the authority of the disciples cele brated rituals that they portrayed as sacrificial. Our sentence, then, marks a transition from the historical time of the other gospels to the eternal time of the “secret report,” which is character- ized by an alternation between Jesus’ presence with and absence from the disciples. It presents that alternation as a movement between two groups of people, “his disciples” and “the children,” which finds confirmation when the disciples ask Jesus about where he goes when he leaves them: “When morning came, he appeared to his disciples, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, where did you go? What do you do after you have left us?’ Jesus said to them, ‘I went to another great and holy race’” (36:11–17). I suggest that “the children” among whom Jesus is often found are the members of the great and holy race. It is well known that the gospel’s preferred term to describe those who are saved (and those who are not saved) as a group is γενεά. The saved are “the great and holy race,” “the mighty and holy race,” and so on, while other human beings are “the cor- ruptible race,” “the races of the pious,” and so on. Genea carried the basic connotation of kinship relation by blood (“family,” “race,” “generation,” “offspring”), but it could refer to groups not so related (“class,” “kind”). Ancient concepts of “race” (genea) included not only blood relations, but also shared customs, institutions, and religious practices, and thus “race” did not constitute an immutable category39. A variety of ancient Christians called themselves a race, even a “new race (γένος),” which they invited others to join (e.g. Epistle to Diognetus 1.1). Nonetheless, the basic meaning connoted descent through generation, and thus describing members of a genea as “children” makes sense. Other passages in Judas suggest that calling those among the saved genea “children” is appropriate. Three times the gospel refers to those who are not saved with the term ϫⲡⲟ (“offspring,” “begetting”). When the disciples

38 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels 176; cf. Dressler, “Judasevangelium” 66. 39 Buell, Why this New Race; Townsend, “Sacrifice and Race.” “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 59 ask about the identity of the great and holy race, Jesus questions why they are thinking about that great race, and he tells them that “the entire offspring of this aeon” ([ϫ]ⲡⲟ ⲛⲓⲙ [Ⲛⲧⲉⲡ]ⲉⲉⲓⲁⲓⲱⲛ) will not see that race, “nor will any mortal human offspring (ϫⲡⲟ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ [ⲛ]ⲑⲛⲏⲧⲟⲥ) be able to go with it” (37:2–3, 6–8). Later, when Judas reports a vision of a large building surrounded by “great people” and asks to enter that building, Jesus replies that “no mortal human offspring (ϫⲡⲟ) is worthy to enter the building that you saw” (45:3–17). Presumably the disciples and other people who are not saved are among “the offspring of this aeon,” while the great and holy race consists of offspring of some other aeon. When Jesus in his discourse with Judas turns to human history, it is clear that the gospel includes descent through generation in its understanding of genea. Jesus reports that Saklas, the lower angel who created humanity, said to Adam, “Your life is going to be measured with time, along with your children (ⲙ⳰ⲛⲛⲉⲕϣⲏⲣⲉ).” In response Judas asks, “What is the maximum that a human being will live?” And Jesus replies, “Why are you amazed? For Adam received his time measured out, along with his race (ⲙ⳰ⲛⲧⲉϥⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ)” (53:6–12). The parallelism makes clear that Adam’s “children” constitute his “race.” It turns out, however, that Adam has two races, whose destinies at the end of the present world will differ. On the one hand, “the entire race of Adam, the earthly man,” will be destroyed (56:4–6), while “the [fruit(?)] of the great race of Adam will be exalted” (57:11–12). According to the gospel, then, a genea consists of “offspring” or “children,” and thus “the children,” in whose midst Jesus is often found when he is not revealing himself to the disciples (33:18– 21), plausibly can refer to “the great and holy race” to which he goes when he leaves the disciples (36:11–17). Epithets like “children” or “little ones” for the true followers of Jesus can be traced back to the New Testament gospels. In fact, our sentence could allude to a familiar scene in the Synoptic Gospels that sets in contrast the “children” (παιδία), whom Jesus blesses, with the “disciples” (μαθηταί), who sternly rebuke those who bring the children. Jesus says that all his followers should either be children or resemble them (Mat- thew 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17). Matthew, the gospel to which Judas appears to be most indebted for its vocabulary and details, uses at least three terms to identify true disciples as children: υἱοί (5:45; 17:26), παιδία (18:1–5; 19:13), and μικροί (18:6, 10, 14)40. In one passage, Jesus calls to himself a child (παιδίον), whom he places “in their

40 On the priority of Matthew as a source for Judas, see Gathercole, “Matthean or Lukan Priority?” 60 DAVID BRAKKE midst” (ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν), referring to the midst of the disciples (Mat- thew 18:2; cf. Mark 9:36). Such language is less frequent in second- century sources. Sethian Gnostic works, like Judas, prefer the vocabulary of race, generation, or seed (σπέρμα)41, but they can refer to the saved as children. In The Hypostasis of the Archons, the luminary Ēlēlēth, speak- ing to Nōrea, calls those who will be acquainted with the truth “your children” (ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ) (96:19) and “the children (Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ) of the light” (97:13–14). According to The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, “the children (Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ) of the great Seth” repose in the luminary Daueithe, while “the souls of the children (Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ)” do so in Ēlēlēth (III 65:19– 22); Judas shares other significant mythological, even verbal parallels with the Holy Book42. The designation of the saved as children coheres with other early Christian writings, including gnostic ones, and it alludes to a scene in the New Testament gospels in which children, represent- ing Jesus’ true followers, are contrasted with the disciples, who appear uncomprehending, even callous (especially in Mark’s version, where the disciples’ attitude causes Jesus to become indignant; Mark 10:13–16). Such an allusion subtly advances the gospel’s negative depiction of the disciples. Our sentence poses another puzzle for interpreters that the proposal of “the children” for Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ may address: why is there the use of the second-personal singular? Why is it “you” (singular) who “would find him in their midst”? Several commentators have suggested that the second-person masculine singular functions here impersonally (“one finds him in their midst”). Nagel, however, claims that such a usage is “so far not attested in narrative texts”; therefore, he and other scholars have proposed emending ϣⲁⲕϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ to ϣⲁⲩϩ⳰ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ, meaning either “they (i.e. the disciples) would find him” or “he would be found”/“one would find him”43. Nonetheless, the use of second-person masculine singular for what Layton calls “the general person (rhetorical person)” is attested in Shenoute and other admittedly non-narrative texts44. Likewise, the generic second person in ancient Greek is rare, but does occur45. Therefore, it

41 Judas once refers to his own “seed” (σπέρμα) (46:6), the only time this word appears in the gospel. It is not clear who or what Judas’s seed might be. 42 Jenott, Gospel of Judas 94–99. 43 Nagel, “Zwei Jahre später” 239; so too Schenke Robinson, “Relationship” 86; Jenott, Gospel of Judas 189. 44 Layton, Coptic Grammar §75, 181(f). In addition to a sermon of Shenoute, he cites examples of such use in reflexive constructions in Sirach, the Apophthegmata Patrum, and the Asceticon of Ephrem Syrus. 45 Stanton, “Generic Second Person.” “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 61 seems plausible, even probable, that in our sentence “you” functions generically and does not require emendation. Is it possible, however, that the clause more directly addresses the reader, that is, that “you” refers to the implied reader? In this case, the clause would function similarly to the aside in Mark 13:14 (“Let the reader understand”). Some have so concluded and have suggested that the entire sentence may then be a gloss by a later scribe, which would explain also the shift in tense46. To be sure, the line between a generic “you” and one that refers specifically to the reader may be difficult to discern. An inter- esting set of possible parallels appears in the untitled work in Nag Hammadi Codex II known as On the Origin of the World. Five times the author pauses his narration of a cosmogonic myth to refer the reader to other works with the phrase “you will find” (ⲕⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉ-); for example, “The account of these matters you will find (ⲕⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉ-) precisely in the First Discourse of Ōraia” (102:23–25; cf. 102:7; 107:2, 15; 112:23). This author refers to himself in the first person (97:27) and seems clearly to be addressing an implied reader or possibly even an actual addressee whose name has been lost. An example closer to our case occurs in the long version of the Secret Book According to John, in which the savior pauses to remark, “Now, others (i.e. angels), whom I have not mentioned to you (ⲛⲁⲕ), preside over the rest of the passions; and if you want to know about them, the matter is written in the Book of Zoroaster” (II 19:8–10)47. Here the second-person singular address is less out of place because the savior has an interlocutor, the disciple John, but the reference to a book suggests that the author is interrupting that fiction and addressing the reader directly. The timeless, even contemporary quality of the dialogues and the neutral, generally Christian character of the prologue in Judas suggest that our author likewise could be turning to the reader and instructing him or her to find not a book, but Jesus. Tage Petersen accepts the second-person address as original to the work. In his view the prologue’s summary of Jesus’ ministry functions as “common ground” that “all kinds of contemporary Christians” would have shared; it draws in “the ideal reader” who “belongs to mainstream Christianity.” But the author seeks to challenge this reader and therefore addresses him or her at the conclusion of the summary: “The prologue ends by addressing the interlocutor-reader directly, assigning him a privileged position at the expense of the disciples”48. The

46 Pagels and King, Reading Judas 125–126. 47 Translation: Layton, Gnostic Scriptures 43. 48 Petersen, “From Perplexity to Salvation” 427; cf. Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos 322. 62 DAVID BRAKKE first-century c.e. literary critic known as Longinus advised that addressing the reader with the second-person singular would make the reader “more attentive and full of active interest, because he is roused by the appeals to him in person”49. I suggest that the prologue first appeals to a Chris- tian reader with its commonly shared message, and then its concluding sentence invites that reader to find Jesus among “the children,” that is, among the members of “the great and holy race” in whose midst Jesus is often found. But does the Gospel of Judas actually invite readers to find Jesus and to join “the great and holy race”? Does it offer people salvation? Mod- ern scholars have noted a tension between the claim that Jesus “performed signs and great wonders for the salvation of humanity (ⲡⲉⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲣ[ⲱⲙ]ⲉ)” and the remainder of the work50. The word ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ (“salvation”) occurs nowhere else in the gospel, and “human,” as we shall see, is almost always used for people who are not saved. In general, some commentators have denied that the gospel offers anyone salvation: it has no soteriology, no good news, and would better be described as “dysangel” (“bad news”) or as a “pseudo-gospel”51. Johanna Brankaer agrees that the work “lacks an elaborate soteriological perspective” and that “no one seems to be the object of salvation,” but suggests that possibly “the saved remain ‘virtual’ in the narrative setting and have to be found beyond the story, in the world of its implied reader”52. This prologue may be where the implied reader is invited to imagine him- or herself as a member of the saved. To be sure, throughout the gospel the unqualified term ⲣⲱⲙⲉ (“human being”) functions nearly always negatively to identify evildoers and those who are not saved. In the disciples’ vision of evil priests who commit vile sins, and in Jesus’ interpretation of it, the wicked persons are called “human beings” (38:4, 24; 39:23; 40:8) or “the races of the human beings” (39:15; 40:19). Elsewhere the damned are described as “mortal human offspring” (37:7; 45:15), “all human races” (43:15), and “the rest of the races of the human beings” (43:24–25). It is not a good sign for the disciples that Jesus refers to them twice as “human beings” (34:17; 35:3). On the other hand, ⲣⲱⲙⲉ can appear with adjectives or other markers that give it a positive valence. Jesus challenges the disciples to bring for- ward “the perfect human being” (ⲡⲣⲱ[ⲙⲉ] ⲛⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ), which of course

49 (Pseudo-)Longinus, On the Sublime 26 (LCL 199:248–249). 50 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos 320. 51 Turner, “Place of the Gospel of Judas” 227; Pearson, “Some Aporiae” 114. 52 Brankaer, “Whose Savior?” 387, 412. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 63 they are unable to do (35:3–4). The saved can be called “the race of those great human beings ([ⲛⲓⲛ]ⲟϭ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ)” (37:12–13), “great (ⲛⲟϭ) human beings” (45:5), or simply “Those People” (ⲛⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ) (45:11– 12)53. In the higher realm exists an immortal called “the first human being” (ⲡϣⲱⲣⲡ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ) (50:20). And when Jesus narrates the creation and destiny of humanity, the term seems to function neutrally: the primordial human beings are marked as neither saved nor damned (52:16; 53:10, 17, 21). Likewise, the spiritual status of “the human being who bears” Jesus and whom Judas will sacrifice is not clear (56:20–21). Therefore, one can understand the “humanity” (ⲙⲚⲧⲣⲱⲙⲉ) for whose salvation Jesus came as also being originally neutral, as having the potential to become either the negative “races of the human beings” or the saved “race of those great human beings.” And in fact the text tells us that “some also were [walking] in the way of righteousness and others were walking in their transgression.” A generic use of “you” in our sentence may be more probable, but just possibly our author addresses the reader directly to invite him or her to accept his message. The prologue summarizes, as Petersen suggested, what all second-century Christians believed — that Jesus performed mir- acles, came to save people (who can be righteous or sinful), called twelve disciples, and taught them about theological and eschatological matters — and it opens the door, so to speak, to the reader to accept the salvation that Jesus brings: “you” can find him among the children. The gospel then leaves the narrated world of the canonical gospels and enters a domain in which Jesus moves between two spaces, that of the disciples in the text, and that of “the children” or “the great and holy race” outside the text. Where does Jesus go when he leaves the disciple? He enters the world of the implied reader, the space of the great and holy race, a space separate from that of the disciples and thus separate from the churches that claim them as authorities, where the disciples and their successors celebrate their eucharist in honor of the wrong god.

Conclusion

In an early insightful essay on the Gospel of Judas, Stephen Emmel com- pared the logic of its final scene to Tom Stoppard’s classic play Rosencrantz

53 Similar vocabulary appears in the Sethian Revelation of Adam: “Those Great People” (ⲛⲓⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ) (66:10–11), “Those People” (ⲛⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ) (67:18– 19), “Those Great People” (ⲛⲓⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ) (74:5–6). 64 DAVID BRAKKE and Guildenstern Are Dead. Just as Stoppard’s play shows where the characters in Hamlet go and what they say and do when they go offstage, so too Judas shows where Judas goes and what he says and does after he exits the upstairs guest room in John 13:30. Emmel writes: The “logic” of Stoppard’s absurdist play is expressed by the Player during Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s first encounter with him, in Act I, when Rosencrantz asks the actor, “What exactly do you do?” To which the actor replies, “We do on stage the things that are supposed to happen off. Which is a kind of integrity, if you look on every exit being an entrance somewhere else.” Judas’s exit from the upstairs guest room in John 13:30 implies his entrance somewhere else, namely into the street outside, where — according to the Gospel of Judas (more or less) — he meets some of the scribes, and they make the financial transaction that sets the betrayal in motion54.

Likewise, Jesus’ departures from the disciples throughout the main section of the gospel imply his arrivals somewhere else, namely at “another great and holy race” (36:16–17) or in “the midst of the children” (33:20– 21). Because it contains an otherwise unattested word, the “true” meaning of the phrase Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ probably cannot be proved and may never be known with certainty. I have argued that the existing proposals are plausible, but also have linguistic, grammatical, and exegetical problems. They share the construal of the phrase as adverbial, as describing a way in which Jesus can be in the midst of the disciples that is different from revealing himself to them. I have proposed the possibility that Ⲛϩ⳰ⲣⲟⲧ is a plural article phrase and that the sentence describes different groups to whom Jesus can be present: he can be among the disciples or among “the children.” Jesus’ movement between these two groups takes place in a time and space outside the narrative framework of the canonical gospels, a framework that the Gospel of Judas invokes at its beginning and end. In this alternative time and space, Jesus often does not reveal himself to his disciples, gathered to celebrate the eucharist and dreaming dreams of their own priestly status; rather, he is among the children, the great and holy race, those who understand who Jesus really is and where he comes from. It is not the case that the gospel offers no one the opportunity to join this race. “You” — the reader of this gospel — you can find him in the midst of the children.

54 Emmel, “Presuppositions” 34–35. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 65

Bibliography

Bobertz, Charles A. “The Development of Episcopal Order.” In: Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, edited by H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, 183–211. Studia Post Biblica 42. Detroit 1992. Bosson, Nathalie. “L’Évangile de Judas: notes linguistiques et stylistiques.” In: The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006, edited by M. Scopello, 3–22. NHMS 62. Leiden/Boston 2008. Bradshaw, Paul F. Eucharistic Origins. London 2004. Brakke, David. “The Gospel of Judas and the End of Sethian Gnosticism.” In: Envisioning God in the Humanities: Essays on Christianity, Juda- ism, and Ancient Religion in Honor of Melissa Harl Sellew, edited by C. J. P. Friesen, 135–152. Westar Seminar on God and the Human Future. Eugene, OR 2018. Brankaer, Johanna. “Whose Savior? Salvation, Damnation and the Race of Adam in the Gospel of Judas.” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 387–412. NHMS 71. Leiden/Boston 2009. Brankaer, Johanna, and Bethge, Hans-Gebhard. Codex Tchacos: Texte und Ana- lysen. TUGACL 16. Berlin/New York 2007. Brankaer, Johanna, and van Os, Bas. The Gospel of Judas. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts. Oxford 2019. Buell, Denise Kimber. Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York 2005. Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford 1939. DeConick, April D. The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. Rev. ed. London/New York 2009. Dressler, G. Constanze. “Das Judasevangelium als vorösterliche Offenbarungs- schrift. Überlegungen zu gattungsgeschichtlichen Eigentümlichkeiten.” In: Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftensammlung, edited by E. E. Popkes and G. Wurst, 55–70. WUNT 297. Tübingen 2012. Dubois, Jean-Daniel. “L’Évangile de Judas et la tradition basilidienne.” In: The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Confer- ence on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006, edited by M. Scopello, 145–154. NHMS 62. Leiden/Boston 2008. Emmel, Stephen. “The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas.” In: The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006, edited by M. Scopello, 33–39. NHMS 62. Leiden/Boston 2008. Foster, Paul. “Polymorphic Christology: Its Origin and Development in Early Christianity.” JTS 58 (2007), 66–99. 66 DAVID BRAKKE

Gathercole, Simon. “Matthean or Lukan Priority? The Use of the NT Gospels in the Gospel of Judas.” In: Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftensamm- lung, edited by E. E. Popkes and G. Wurst, 291–302. WUNT 297. Tübin- gen 2012. Grosso, Matteo. “Three Days and Eight Days: Chronology in the Gospel of Judas.” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 453–469. NHMS 71. Leiden/ Boston 2009. Hartenstein, Judith. 2012. “Die literarische Gestalt des Judasevangelium.” In: Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftensammlung, edited by E. E. Popkes and G. Wurst, 37–54. WUNT 297. Tübingen 2012. Jenott, Lance. The “Gospel of Judas”: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of the “Betrayer’s Gospel.” STAC 64. Tübingen 2011. Kasser, Rodolphe. “Étude dialectale. Portant globalement sur les quatre textes coptes du Codex Tchacos.” In: The Gospel of Judas, edited and translated by R. Kasser et al., 35–78. Washington, DC 2007. Kasser, Rodolphe, Wurst, Gregor, Meyer, Marvin, and Gaudard, François. The Gospel of Judas, Together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition. Washington, DC 2007. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. London/New York 2003. Layton, Bentley. A Coptic Grammar, with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect. 3rd ed. PLO, n.s. 20. Wiesbaden 2011. —. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, N.Y. 1987. Meyer, Marvin. “When the Sethians Were Young: The Gospel of Judas in the Second Century.” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the Inter- national Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 57–73. NHMS 71. Leiden/Boston 2009. Nagel, Peter. “Das Evangelium des Judas.” ZNW 98 (2007), 213–276. —. “Das Evangelium des Judas — zwei Jahre später.” ZNW 100 (2009), 101– 138. Pagels, Elaine, and King, Karen L. Reading Judas: The “Gospel of Judas” and the Shaping of Christianity. New York 2007. Papadogiannakis, Y. “Erotapokriseis.” In: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2491–2493. Malden, MA 2012. Pearson, Birger A. “Some Aporiae in the Gospel of Judas.” In: From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton, edited by D. Brakke, S. J. Davis, and S. Emmel, 101–116. OLA 263. Leuven 2017. “IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN” 67

Pervo, Richard I. The Acts of John. Early Christian Apocrypha 6. Salem, OR 2016. Petersen, Tage. “From Perplexity to Salvation: The Gospel of Judas Read in Light of Platonic Didactic Strategies.” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Pro- ceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 413–434. NHMS 71. Leiden/Boston 2009. Sandul, Lindsey. “Judas Iscariot as a Deuteragonist Character: A Narrative- Critical Interpretation of the Gospel of Judas.” M.A. thesis, Concordia University, 2011. Santos, Diego M., and Ubierna, Pablo. El evangelio de Judas y otros textos gnós- ticos: Tradiciones culturales en el monacato primitivo egipcio del siglo IV. Byzantinia & Orientalia, Studia 1. Buenos Aires 2009. Schenke Robinson, Gesine. “The Gospel of Judas: Its Protagonist, Its Compo- sition and Its Community.” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice Univer- sity, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 75–94. NHMS 71. Leiden/Boston 2009. —. “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethi- anism.” JCoptS 10 (2008), 63–98. Stanton, G. R. “The Generic Second Person in Aiskhylos’ Agamemnon.” Mne- mosyne 50 (1997), 1–6. Suciu, Alin. The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon: A Coptic Apostolic Memoir. WUNT 370. Tübingen 2017. Townsend, Philippa. “Sacrifice and Race in the Gospel of Judas.” In: Judas evangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verotrung einer gnostischen Schriftensammlung, edited by Enno Edzard Popkes and Gregor Wurst, 149–172. WUNT 297. Tübingen 2012. Turner, John D. “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, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006, edited by M. Scopello, 187–237. NHMS 62. Leiden/Boston 2008. —. “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas: Soteriology or Demonology?” In: The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, edited by A. DeConick, 95–133. NHMS 71. Leiden/Boston 2009.

David Brakke Ohio State University [email protected]