"Gateway to Knowledge." San Diego Union-Tribune. 02 July 2006 | CONTINUED

Ted Waitt: I wouldn't say great pains were taken to release it at Easter time. The release was actually moved up due to leaks and claims by other somewhat potentially jealous scholars who didn't have access to the actual codex. The original release was timed for after Easter.

One only need to peruse the Internet to find a history of the document, and all sorts of radical claims as to the path it traveled. You can also check out the National Geographic book and documentary released during the launch chronicling the history of the document.

The full translation was available to us and a handful of scholars months before the release, but even up to the last minute the scholars were debating the meaning of specific words in it. The codex was remarkably difficult to translate due to the poor condition of the papyrus and many missing pieces. The scholars would always like more time to perfect their translations, and my sense is now that the document has been released to the world, the debate can now really begin as to its significance and meaning. There are only a handful of Coptic scholars (the language the codex is written in) in the world, and many of the top experts had a hand in the translation. But most scholars I've talked to would still like more time to analyze it. You might see other interpretations coming out from (other) experts.

One biblical scholar noted that it took him three readings before he really started to see the similarities with the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Also, now there is hope that other missing pages or fragments of the codex are going to come forward that will help fill in some blanks, and that will add even more to our knowledge of the early history of Christianity.

What is your personal opinion about the importance of this discovery? Do you personally believe it is authentic?

Ted Waitt: It's absolutely authentic, and extremely significant. I believe its greatest significance lies in getting more people to understand the early evolution of Christianity. It's significant to help people understand how there was substantial diversity in thought before various individual early Christian leaders decided to focus or give credence to just certain elements and views of Jesus' teachings.

It's also significant to note that the early Christians were more spiritual than religious, and followed Jesus' teachings without the need of a hierarchical church. In these days of religious extremism causing great conflict in our world, it might help people to understand the diversity of the origins of their religions. It's also significant in potentially bringing people of different faiths closer together. Are you a religious man?

Ted Waitt: I'd view myself as more spiritual than religious, but I did take my kids to church on Easter. Do you feel the responses in the media from religious leaders, etc., were right on target? How would you characterize them?

Ted Waitt: Well, it depends on which comments you are talking about. A Vatican scholar called the text "religious fantasy." And the Rev. Robert Schuller said "why would anyone ever need more than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?"

Well, like all the gospels, these were stories. Stories according to someone, and from someone's perspective.

The term gospel stands for good news. And they are accounts of stories people told for years before anyone wrote them down. The authorship of every gospel is in question as to who actually wrote them. There are even differences in how the accepted New Testament gospels portray Judas' betrayal of Jesus. For instance, John is much harsher on Judas and his intentions and motivations versus the other gospels. So, it's not surprising that these other gospels differ from the four originally chosen by Bishop Irenaeus in 180 A.D. as the true gospels.

Imagine this. Let's say you died about 2,000 years ago, and your friends told their stories about you to their children and friends for approximately 100 years after you died. And then someone decides to write these stories down. And then they get translated from one language into another. And there's as many as 30 different versions written down. And someone picks just four as the only ones anyone should see, renounces the others, and all this happens approximately 150 years after you die.

Would you expect them to all be the same? Would you be happy with just those four that some person who didn't know you selected? Maybe, maybe not. But what about the other 26 versions of events? Maybe they were true, maybe not. Maybe they had other things in them that actually happened or that were important to you. No one really knows for sure. But odds are, there's something in the 26 that you might have supported, and maybe something from the four that you might not have. The key is in understanding the general tone and intentions of your life in all of them, and making some important observations from that.

So, religious organizations will have their point of view, and I can respect that. I hope that people reading and understanding the impact of these types of gospels use them to learn and restore their faith and embrace more diversity of thought, rather than debating the historical facts that no one will ever be able to prove. The real significance lies in Jesus' teachings and in his messages, more so than the specific facts of some of the stories told to demonstrate his teachings.

In my opinion, if someone considers themself a good "Christian," they should read these gospels and make up their own mind as to the significance of these ancient documents. They can decide for themselves what Jesus meant to say, and what he wanted his message to be remembered as.

What do you think lies ahead for the Gospel of Judas? In your mind, should it be addended to the Bible?

Ted Waitt: No, I don't think it will be added to the conventional bible, at least not any time soon. But, if you're really interested, you can buy a Gnostic bible with all the other gospels that didn't make the cut. The major find at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, decades ago was never added and never will be, and that contains the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, among many others. But, I do hope this one will bring attention to diversity of thought in early Christianity, and that people will read them and make up their own mind. I think the debate is just starting, and the historians, scholars and the general public can now read them, discuss them, and decide what they think. There are some scholars that think of these Gnostic gospels as even more advanced teachings of Christ. They are not the easiest things to understand, and they are open to multiple interpretations. So different people might think different things from reading the same thing, but in the end, diversity is good. Knowledge is good. What other similarly intriguing topic is your Institute for Historical Discovery involved in or about to embark on?

Ted Waitt: I'm working on looking for things at the bottom of the ocean. Interesting stuff. Not as deep as Gnostic gospels, but potentially significant nonetheless.

Back to Beginning of Article