Biased Readers: The Smithsonian and Elaine Pagels

For an enjoyably peeved analysis of the April cover story in The Smithsonian, see Mike Aquilina's Smithsonian: Christians? What Christians? from his weblog The Way of the Fathers. Mike has written for us a lot and has several reviews in the hopper.

And for a good example of how not to read the New Testament, see Salon.com's interview with Elaine Pagels, Gospel According to Judas. For example, she explains that although Judas "has become the symbol of treachery and betrayal,"

once you start to look at the gospels one by one, you realize that followers of Jesus were trying to understand what had happened after he was arrested and killed. They knew Judas had handed him over to the people who arrested him.

The earliest gospel, Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all. The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive. So Matthew adds a motive. Matthew says Judas went to the chief priests who were Jesus' enemies, and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" And they agree on a certain sum of money. So in Matthew's view, the motive was greed. In Luke's gospel, it's entirely different. It says the power of evil took over Judas. Satan entered into him.

The point, I think, is to undermine the traditional story by showing that the sources themselves disagree. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke disagree, they can't be trusted to give us the real story about Judas, and if they can't be trusted, perhaps the Gospel of Judas actually gives us the true story. If the tradition conflated their stories into one official authorized version, perhaps it did so for self-interested reasons, which suggests that the repressed dissenting tradition tells us the truth the powers-that-be of the time didn't want anyone to know.

This is really very dim. Remarkably dim. Dim beyond belief.

Dim, I mean, simply as a reading of the story the gospels tell us. A man is so greedy that he betrays a close friend, a man whose disciple he has been for some time, and sends him to an excruciatingly painful death, for money. He does what the crudest morality of the playground ("No squealing!") treats almost as the unforgivable sin.

He had, we know, to decide to do this. At one moment Judas is still a disciple, at the next he's decided to make money by getting his friend and master killed. That decision is certainly an act of greed. That Satan entered into him is both a very good description of such a treacherous decision and a perfectly plausible explanation (and a perfectly good metaphor if you don't believe in Satan).

To be so greedy that you betray your friend and master is to let Satan enter into you. It's the same act, understood in two different ways. Maybe Matthew was more personal (there's a better word for what I mean, but I can't think of it off the top of my head) and Luke more theological in describing the same act.

But Pagels decides that these descriptions are "entirely different." Entirely different. People who read more carefully — and without the establishment scholar's ideological bias against the consistency of the gospels — will say that they look more like two different ways of describing the same act, as one might say (and has said) of a man who left a loving wife and dependent children for a younger woman both that he wanted to get Miss Lollipop into bed and that he lost his mind. It's the same action, described from two different angles, both equally true and the two perfectly consistent with each other.

But we are supposed to take seriously someone who declares Matthew and Luke's descriptions "entirely different," and in response throw over the Christian tradition for the Gospel of Judas, or at least hold open the possibility that the tradition is wrong and the alternative gospel right. All theological considerations aside, before rejecting an ancient consensus I'd rather depend upon someone in whose ability to read I have more trust.

For more on Dr. Pagels, you will want to read Fr. Paul Mankowski's The Pagels Imposture.

Comments

[Little Gidding]

"... the establishment scholar's ideological bias against the consistency of the gospels ..."

I wonder if it's just that or if it's the Gnostic's (Pagels') "hermeneutic of suspicion" regarding the "structures of oppression and bondage" that the Gnostic reads into the Church of the Apostles?

[Steve Nicoloso]

And no offense, Mr. Mills, but your rejoinder to Pagels' dim-wittedness, while more eloquently and concisely put than most, is not exactly rocket science--one with which any questioner remotely familiar with gospels (or for that matter with Zefferelli's masterpiece) might arrive. So, a greater question remains in my mind: Did Smithsonian Magazine, ostensibly above-average-brow lay scientific reading for a rather well-educated (if not well-monied) crowd, call her on the carpet for this? (I'll assume not.) And if not, why not? Was the interviewer so doltish? Or was this a puff piece for Pagels? And if a puff piece, why? What does Smithsonian stand to gain by doing puff pieces for heresiarchs? And while I think we all know the answer, surely Smithsonian Magazine would be embarrassed by such an answer. One would think they would at least find a fig leaf to cover such transparencies.

[David Mills]

Mr. Nicoloso,

Well, actually, the Smithsonian article and the Salon.com interview were entirely separate productions.

I hope this doesn't sound thin-skinned, but why the insulting opening? When someone begins "no offense," something offensive is usually about to be said. I wouldn't claim my criticism to be rocket science, but this kind of analysis is one I've found, repeatedly, that some very intelligent people can't manage. Their minds aren't wired that way.

[James A. Altena]

I think that a major part of David Mills' post is that the self-proclaimed intelligentsia is so caught up in its own narrow prejudicies that it *can't* perceive the obvious (that which is not "rocket science"). But, since it is the recognized intelligentsia, a lot of moderately intelligent but unreflective people follow its lead unquestionaly.

As a philosopher friend of mine said a number of years ago, there is both a need for and a value in the plain statement and public refutation of arrant stupidity. Often it is the role of folks such as the editors of Touchstone to provide that necessary and estimable office.

[holmegm]

>As a philosopher friend of mine said a number of years
>ago, there is both a need for and a value in the plain
>statement and public refutation of arrant stupidity.

Yep - if we don't frequently state the obvious, it may cease to be obvious.

>Often it is the role of folks such as the editors of
>Touchstone to provide that necessary and estimable
>office.

And I thank them for it!

[Marc V]

Was Judas the greatest traitor in history? Or did he not have free will and was just following the pre-ordained script, a domino falling in the line of Jesus' path?

All of us have a little bit of Judas in us, where our sin results in rebellion against the Lord. Whether it's for earthly gain (30 pieces of silver), letting Satan gain entrance or whatever excuse is handy, we wrestle with the reason(s) for our weakness.

The Smithsonian is interested in the historical record, so upon finding what they feel is a discrepancy they then seek to "Pagelize" it. After 2000 years, can we get under Judas' skin to understand his act of treachery?

[Brad C]

"The earliest gospel, Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all. The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive. So Matthew adds a motive."

Omniscience concerning what ancient writers "felt" is a useful quality to have as a Biblical "scholar". Dude, that's like, science!

[Steve Nicoloso]

Mr. Mills, I simply and truly meant no offense. I am a great fan of your writing... which obviously I need to read more closely... heh! :-/ So when I said, "no offense", I truly meant in the sense of being NOT insulting. I suppose it is sometimes an irony to actually mean what one types. Yes, I know that many "intelligent" people cannot easily see through Pagels' hermeneutic. But I am convinced that it is because they are "intelligent", i.e., deserving of the scare quotes... like Velveeta is "cheese".

[Rob Grano]

We in Pittsburgh are fortunate enough to have our own mini-Pagels here at Pitt. Get a load of this el toro poopoo:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06106/682359-109.stm

[Dim Bulb]

First of all I object to the repeated use of the word "Dim" :)
Second, Mark suggests the motive was greed even if it is not explicit: "They promised to pay him money." Mk 14:11