MORE RESPONSES TO THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS:

Jewish responses:

"Discovery of New Gospel Rekindles Interfaith Jitters," by Hillel Halkin (Jerusalem Post columnist):

Of course, since the text of the "Gospel According to Judas" has not yet been released by the National Geographic Society, we may yet be in for unpleasant surprises. This gospel, so the advance publicity has informed us, is, like a number of other noncanonical early Christian accounts of Jesus' life and death, a Gnostic document - and in its attitude toward Jews, Christian Gnosticism was on the whole even more hostile than mainstream Christianity. The fact that the "Gospel According to Judas" vindicates Judas does not necessarily mean that it will prove to be a vindication of the Jews or Judaism.

But never mind that.

An early, second-century C.E. exoneration of Judas Iscariot is sufficient unto itself. And although it obviously has great historical significance for scholars, such an exoneration will speak especially to those Jews (of whom I confess to be one) who have always felt both close to the figure of Jesus and unforgiving toward a Christian world that persecuted us viciously in his name. With such a Judas, one can identify.

"Judas, Reconsidered,", by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies, New York University (The Jewish Week):

Despite its alleged kosher certification of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of Judas is part of a literature that represents a sort of alternative anti-Judaism to that which developed in the era of the Church Fathers. Much has been made of the fact that this text describes Judas as having been particularly close to Jesus, who revealed to him esoteric teachings. However, the content of this revelation is a series of Gnostic teachings that are totally at odds with Christianity as we know it.

[...]

The Gospel of Judas discovery may lead some to read the New Testament in a way that further reduces its anti-Judaism � by interpreting Judas� role as part of what Christians see as the divine plan. If so, this text will have turned out to be �good for the Jews.� Texts such as the Gospel of Judas can help to remind us of alternative explanations and guide us towards greater understanding, but they cannot be taken as the basis for any kind of historical understanding of the first century.

Christian responses:

Catholic Santa Fe Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan as quoted in "N.M. Catholic archbishop: Judas text heretical, ‘not a real gospel'" (Catholic News Service):

Writing in the May issue of the monthly archdiocesan newspaper, People of God, Archbishop Sheehan said the National Geographic Society, which sponsored an English translation of the ancient text and put the manuscript on exhibit in early April "did a disservice to Christian people and has exploited this old manuscript for its own purposes."

[...]

"In the early church there were many writings such as the Gospel of Judas which were rejected as unworthy to be included in the Bible," Archbishop Sheehan wrote. "We believe that the early church fathers had the guidance of the Holy Spirit in determining which writings were truly authentic and inspired by God and which writings were not. Obviously the Gospel of Judas did not 'make the cut.'"

Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in a sermon, as reported in "Archbishop of Canterbury says Gospel isn't a cover-up for the powerful" (Ecclesia):

In his Easter Sunday sermon, delivered at Canterbury Cathedral, the spiritual head of the world’s 77 million Anglicans – himself a noted scholar – acknowledged that the discovery of the Coptic text of a ‘Gospel of Judas’ and the excitement generated by the publication of The Da Vinci Code might appeal to people's desire for exciting secrets.

[...]

“We have become so suspicious of the power of words … the first assumption we make is that we're faced with spin of some kind, with an agenda being forced on us. So that the modern response to the proclamation ‘Christ is Risen!’ is likely to be, ‘Ah, but you would say that, wouldn't you? Now what's the real agenda?’”

Said the Archbishop: “Anything that looks like the official version is automatically suspect. Someone is trying to stop you finding out what ‘really’ happened, because what really happened could upset or challenge the power of officialdom.”

The New Testament account doesn't fit this model he says: “It was written by people who, by writing what they did made themselves less powerful, not more. They were walking out into an unmapped territory, away from the safe places of political and religious influence … it was written by people who were still trying to find a language that would catch up with a reality bigger than they had expected.”