Posted on 04/26/2006 11:53:48 AM PDT by Caleb1411
Given that the old Greek word behind the English term "gospel" means "good news," you have to wonder whether the much-touted and recently published Gospel of Judas really qualifies as either.
Assuming you didn't give up the media for Lent -- which, come think of it ... oh, never mind -- you could hardly have avoided this month's announcement about the latest addition to the religious history files.
To make a long story short: The Gospel of Judas is part of an ancient manuscript that apparently was unearthed in the late 1970s in Egypt. After a lengthy trip through the sometimes shadowy realm of the antiquities trade, it came to rest about five years ago at the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art in Basel, Switzerland.
Since then, the badly damaged pages have been in the process of restoration, translation and publication -- this last in the form of a little volume titled "The Gospel of Judas," courtesy of the National Geographic Society.
In this revised-and-not-so-standard version of the story, Judas is not the archetypal villain who betrays his master to enemies under the influence of greed and dark powers. Instead, Judas does Jesus a favor by handing him over.
"Step away from the others," Jesus tells Judas, "and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom."
Which brings us to the question: Is the Gospel of Judas "good" and "news?" Well, yes -- and arguably no.
In one sense, this document is huge news: It apparently is the same text, vanished until now, that the second-century Christian author Irenaeus mentioned in his criticism of a sect of gnostics, the New Agers of his day.
"And Judas the betrayer was thoroughly acquainted with these things, they say," Irenaeus wrote in a passage quoted in the National Geographic book; "and he alone was acquainted with the truth as no others were, and so accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. ... And they bring forth a fabricated work to this effect, which they entitle the Gospel of Judas."
In Herbert Krosney's "The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot," Swiss translator Rodolphe Kasser says: "The importance of this text is that it is not only a new manuscript, but an entirely new kind of document. ... We previously had only what the church forefathers were saying about the gnostics, but rarely the texts the gnostics wrote themselves. Now we can understand the nuances of what the forefathers said by using the gnostic texts."
In terms of its presentation of its namesake as hero rather than goat, the Gospel of Judas is indeed something new and interesting. But in its presentation of an arcane gnostic cosmology -- "The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries" -- it seems to be old hat for scholars. In an essay in "The Gospel of Judas," co-editor Marvin Meyer indicates the content is typical of what's known in the trade as "Sethian" gnosticism.
You could be forgiven, then, for thinking (like a weary cop listening to an all-too-familiar tale): "Yah, yah -- we've heard it before."
So if the Gospel of Judas is not entirely news, is it "good?" True, it provides a touchstone for what certain people believed 150 or 200 years after Christ's death, but does it record the "real" story -- one that was unjustly erased by heavy-handed religious figures -- of Judas, Jesus and the early faith?
Maybe not.
In the book "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew," North Carolina scholar Bart D. Ehrman -- who provided commentary for both Krosney's book and "The Gospel of Judas" -- notes the diversity of theological talking heads in ancient times: "In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365."
But one can argue on a couple of grounds that the Biblical accounts have the edge here. Ehrman himself says in "The Lost Gospel:" "The first (canonical) Gospel to be written was that of Mark, from about 65 or 70 CE (35-40 years after the death of Jesus)." Matthew, he says, came "somewhat later (80-85 CE)."
And if the apostle Paul was writing his epistles in the years 49-62 (as per a time line in Krosney's book), that would tend to place the writing of Acts (which ends with Paul still alive) and the Gospel of Luke (traditionally ascribed to the same author) in the same historical ballpark.
In contrast, Meyer says that the Gospel of Judas probably was "composed around the middle of the second century, most likely on the basis of earlier ideas and sources." In other words, the historical gap between events and writing is about two or three times that of some of the Biblical material.
In addition to the matter of eras is that of ideas. "Jesus was a Jew living in Palestine," Ehrman notes in "The Gospel of Judas," "and like all Palestinian Jews, he accepted the authority of the Jewish Scriptures .... Jesus presented himself as an authoritative interpreter of these Scriptures and was known to his followers as a great rabbi (teacher)."
If so, given a theology that repudiates the God of the Torah as an inferior deity who created a hellhole of a world -- the view of gnosticism -- and a theology that affirms and builds on the Jewish Scriptures, which is more likely to record what the historical Jesus actually taught?
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did," said the author of the Gospel of John (Revised Standard Version); "were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
Something tells me that the Gospel of Judas wasn't exactly what the biblical writer had in mind.
Wow - a relatively lucid viewpoint published in the mainstream press. Again, wow.
Judas: "I was framed!"
s/b "confuse" - sorry for any confusion
Everyone who touches it becomes a Democrat.
"I should stress that not everyone has the means to escape. That is because not everyone has the spark of the divine within them. Only some of us do. The other people are the creations of the inferior god of this world. They, like other creatures here (dogs, turtles, mosquitoes, and so on), will die and that will be the end of their story. But some of us are trapped divinities. And we need to learn how to return to our heavenly home."
So if you are religious leader, like the Pope, how do you explain to prospective converts that they might not have a chance at life beyond this existance because they might not have the "divine spark" within them? How does a religious leader reconcile with his flock that Jesus considered the god that created the earth as an inferior god, and mocked him, and that he - Jesus - derives from the one true God? In this book Jesus is saying that some people have the spirit of life, but not the divine spark. Some people die and that's the end of them, others die and escape to the eternal realm.
Wow - there's going to be a whole lotta shaking goin on if this debate gets started!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616236/posts
But playing up these old heretical documents can make you wealthy these days.
Not really. These doctrines were well-known to have been held by heretics from the earliest centuries of the Church.
The article above explains why The Gospel of Judas is spurious as an account of Jesus of Nazareth's teaching and activities.
While the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were incontrovertibly written within living memory of Jesus of Nazareth's ministry, this document was not - it was written more than three generations later.
It also fits a common pattern of Gnostic writers hijacking other people's religious traditions to fit their notions: Gnostics also wrote spurious narratives about Adam, Noah, Moses and David as well as ones about Zoroaster and other figures. The Gospel of Judas is a typical cookie cutter Gnostic exploitation of someone else's already-existing tradition. Literally hundreds of texts similar to this one have survived from that time period, all you need to do is change the names and places - it's pure Gnostic boilerplate.
In each reworking by the Gnostics, the teachings are rote: the betrayer or enemy of the prophet/divinity involved is secretly the prophet/divinity's best friend/brother/confidant. The prophet/divinity always claims that the physical world is evil, that the nature of the deity is incredibly numerically complex, and that the mathematic formulas and incantations needed to access the deity are secrets known only to a small group of initiates. The enemy/betrayer is always a secret initiate. All outsiders are beasts, only initiates are real or spiritual or holy. Usually, this knowledge can be purchased.
These tropes are repeated again and again in every Gnostic cult.
The Gnostic heresy (held by Simon Magus) was recognized and condemned by the first Pope for what it was in the Acts of the Apostles - a grasping and opportunistic attempt to exploit the Gospel.
The current Pope has no fear in the face of a fake story that was first debunked almost 2,000 years ago.
So while The Gospel of Judas is useless when it comes to discovering details of Jesus of Nazareth's biography and ministry, it is a biased but still informative window into the world of 2nd century Christianity.
Well-known to church scholars perhaps, but not historically to the church goers in general. These documents and ideas obviously were and are being suppressed from most people. Of course, I don't view it heretical at all that Jesus was from the one true God.
"The current Pope has no fear in the face of a fake story that was first debunked almost 2,000 years ago."
I guess that is why these things have been suppressed all these centuries. The religious leaders had no fear of them.
Jesus kinda attacked the orthodoxy of his day too didn't he?
Why would it be or should it be? There were no books in my Catholic school history classes about George Washington being a space alien either.
These documents and ideas obviously were and are being suppressed from most people.
It's only obvious to your ahistorical mind.
There are thousands of volumes beloved by orthodox Church fathers that have not survived either.
Of course, I don't view it heretical at all that Jesus was from the one true God.
You don't have any authority to opine on the orthodoxy of anything.
I guess that is why these things have been suppressed all these centuries.
They weren't suppressed. If they were, we wouldn't be reading them now.
The rarity of Gnostic texts today has to do with the secrecy and the elitism of Gnostics and nothing to do with the Christians who laughed at their foolishness.
The religious leaders had no fear of them.
The Gnostics were the Scientologists of their day - do you think that the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the President of the Southern Baptist Conference or the Archbishop of Canterbury are worried that L. Ron Hubbard is gaining on Jesus?
Jesus actually defended the traditional Judaism of his day against the excesses of two groups: the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Some Jewish commentators on Jesus - like Geza Vermes - have characterized Jesus as defending a rural, traditional Jewish belief typical of the Galilean common people against the overly refined hairsplitting of the hypereducated Pharisees and the Levitical elitism of the Sadducees.
jesus certainly affirmed all the touchstones of Jewish orthodoxy - a reverence for Torah law, a compliance with Torah feastkeeping and traditional Jewish liturgy centered on the Temple in Jerusalem, a belief in the Messiah and the teachings of the traditional prophets like isaiah and Jeremiah, etc.
What proof do you have that hundreds of millions of religious people have ever been exposed to these alternate views?
"There are thousands of volumes beloved by orthodox Church fathers that have not survived either."
Must not have been too important then.
"You don't have any authority to opine on the orthodoxy of anything."
I can opine on anything I wish. I don't recognize the authority of anyone to tell on what I can or cannot opine.
"They weren't suppressed. If they were, we wouldn't be reading them now."
No, we are reading them now because of the internet and the reach it has. If we relied upon religious authorities, we would never know of these documents.
"do you think that the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the President of the Southern Baptist Conference or the Archbishop of Canterbury are worried that L. Ron Hubbard is gaining on Jesus?"
I don't worry, nor do I care. But this isn't an important an issue for me as it is for the people you mention. And I do think they are worried somewhat, otherwise they, and you, wouldn't devote so much time to it.
"Why would it be or should it be?"
Because then, and now, religious leaders fear that their "flocks" will read these books and documents, and ask them some hard questions. And to my knowledge, hardly anyone has ever feared that people might have differing views and opinions about George Washington.
Ok, he defended one pointed of view against another point of view. And some of the religious leaders of his time didn't like it did they? It reminds me of the religious leaders of today. Different view? No way, no how, don't read it, don't teach it, don't speak it, it's heretical!
I never said that was the case, I specifically asked why they should have.
Why should there be informational affirmative action for kooks? If a gang of nutballs decide tomorrow that ace MLB pitcher Rollie Fingers is a deity who created an alternate universe 11 billion years ago, does the Southern Baptist Conference or the Catholic Church have any obligation to place a brochure about their theories in every pew?
Get real.
Must not have been too important then.
When every book is handwritten and perishable and their are a limited number of copyists, even very important texts are sometimes unintentionally sacrificed.
Informational note: the printing press wasn't invented until the 1450s.
I can opine on anything I wish. I don't recognize the authority of anyone to tell on what I can or cannot opine.
And I can opine on whether or not a particular flyfishing lure is effective. Of course, I know next to nothing about flyfishing.
No, we are reading them now because of the internet and the reach it has.
Plenty of Gnostic books have been in print for centuries.
If we relied upon religious authorities, we would never know of these documents.
If you rely on people whose job is being a Christian pastor to be your personal servants who provide you with every last scrap of irrelevant data that happens to pass through your mind, then you're in a quandary. Why hasn't the post office or the AMA been more aggressive in disseminating Gnostic propaganda as well?
And I do think they are worried somewhat, otherwise they, and you, wouldn't devote so much time to it.
The MSM devotes a lot of time to misrepresenting the facts about these texts. Christians spend a tiny fraction of their time pointing out the lies.
Because then, and now, religious leaders fear that their "flocks" will read these books and documents, and ask them some hard questions.
What hard questions could they possibly ask? Question: "Father, are there really twelve aeons composed of twelve luminaries?" Answer: "What the heck are you talking about?"
And to my knowledge, hardly anyone has ever feared that people might have differing views and opinions about George Washington.
I don't know anyone who is afraid of someone having a different opinion of Jesus? They may feel pity for someone who is so spiritually at sea, but not fear.
No, it is isn't a matter of one set of man's views against anothers. Jesus taught the Truth of God - that was written in Torah and the Prophets. That Truth being that there is only Holy, Righteous and Merciful God who by His grace will cover the people's sins and atone for them when they turn from their selfish ways and love Him and guard His truth in their hearts. Jesus spoke The Truth that the Scriptures spoke of Him as the Messiah, God in the flesh. That it isn't about man's ideas or works, but it is simple faith in the eternal God that is the key to peace with God. And that He came to provide the means by which we can enter into that grace.
And some of the religious leaders of his time didn't like it did they?
No, they didn't like it for the same reason that Cain killed Abel up to the present day when people don't want to hear and admit the truth, and will still kill those who speak it - They want to rest on their own ideas and their own ways to please God instead of simply realizing that He is God and we are not and there is nothing in us that can please Him. They want to be on an equal basis with God. Jesus called them on that - that their works were nothing but nonsense and that instead of directing their flocks to the True Shepherd, they were leading them down a path of burden and sorrow and...
Nobody like to be convicted of their sins. It isn't pleasant. Unless, of course, we come to repentance and our sins are forgiven because of faith in Christ Jesus. Then there is joy that can't be expressed. But until we come to that repentance point, or if we do not at all, we know full well, though we suppress that knowledge, that we are fighting with God and we will not win. That suppression and the result of it come in many forms. One form was to crucify Christ Jesus, God in the flesh.
It reminds me of the religious leaders of today. Different view? No way, no how, don't read it, don't teach it, don't speak it, it's heretical!
There are all sorts of religious leaders of today. Some are like the Pharisees - relying and leading people to rely on their own ways to please God. Others are like the gnostics, others are like the Sadducees, others are like... And some are true Godly leaders who will warn their flocks and others of the eternal danger of listening to things like the gnostic gospels that deny who Jesus is. And for those who belong to Him, we are all commanded to warn others of such deadly spiritual poison.
Doesn't bother me. A point of view was deliberately suppressed by church authorities. At one point, people who asked heretical questions or who didn't follow the teachings of the "authorities" in the church were murdered by the church. But, that's YOUR church, so YOU defend it.
"If a gang of nutballs decide tomorrow that ace MLB pitcher Rollie Fingers is a deity who created an alternate universe 11 billion years ago, does the Southern Baptist Conference or the Catholic Church have any obligation to place a brochure about their theories in every pew?"
No, but if that gang of nutballs started getting millions of converts, PAYING CONVERTS, the Catholic Church would be raising holy hell about it wouldn't they?
"even very important texts are sometimes unintentionally sacrificed."
True and it is sad. Someone tried to save the Judas Gospel and they succeeded, although the document was partially destroyed. You don't suppose that other documents didn't survive because someone thought they were heretical and they destroyed them because they didn't want others reading them do you? Of course not, because they had anything to fear did they?
"Informational note: the printing press wasn't invented until the 1450s."
Gee.
"And I can opine on whether or not a particular flyfishing lure is effective. Of course, I know next to nothing about flyfishing."
Well there you go. We agree that we can opine about something if we wish. Now that wasn't so hard was it?
"Plenty of Gnostic books have been in print for centuries."
And I repeat, that knowledge or views of those books couldn't have the same reach until the invention of the internet.
"If you rely on people whose job is being a Christian pastor to be your personal servants who provide you with every last scrap of irrelevant data that happens to pass through your mind, then you're in a quandary."
In that respect I have no worry. I quit going to church a long time ago. I still see no reason to go back.
"Why hasn't the post office or the AMA been more aggressive in disseminating Gnostic propaganda as well?"
I don't know, but I bet if you had anything to say about it, you would oppose it if they tried wouldn't you? Your question then would be: "What business does the Post Office or the AMA have in disseminating Gnostic propaganda?" C'mon admit it, you would be furious!
"Christians spend a tiny fraction of their time pointing out the lies."
Of course, it's because they have nothing to fear. I suspect though, that a LOT more than a tiny fraction is being paid to "pointing out the lies" now isn't it?
"What hard questions could they possibly ask?"
Well, one hard question would be to ask if it is true that some people have spirits but not the divine spark. After all, Jesus "survived" death, but no one else has since then. How come? Were, are, the gnostics right?
"I don't know anyone who is afraid of someone having a different opinion of Jesus? They may feel pity for someone who is so spiritually at sea, but not fear."
Some of the religious leaders of old were not only afraid, they were downright punitive. "Confess your heresy" was heard by a lot people before they died from their tortures. But hey - those were the "authorities" so it was all good.
LOL - yes it most certainly was! And Jesus was killed for it!
I think the motive of those who killed Jesus was different from the motive for Cain killing Abel.
"gnostic gospels that deny who Jesus is."
So who did the gnostics believe Jesus to be? Did they believe he existed at all? Did they or did they not believe he was the son of the one true God?
"The current Pope has no fear in the face of a fake story that was first debunked almost 2,000 years ago."
I guess that is why these things have been suppressed all these centuries. The religious leaders had no fear of them.
Respectfully I don't believe that's the point...The fear is not what the documents would do to the chruch, but rather that the documents would fill the hearts of the members pulling them away from the true message of the Gospel, the saving death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Here's an analogy...Think of a book you'd rather not have your children read, let's say its a book discussing the great feelings a person can have when you are drunk and how fun it is...Would one choose to keep that book away from their children so they are not tempted to drink to find this feeling? Most parents would and do...The church is doing the same thing with this book...it's unhealthy reading it's heretical, it's false gospel...there is no good reason for the faithful to read it...all that statement and I'm not even Catholic! (Conservative Lutheran, but we avoid the gnostic gospels like the plague as well).
Blessing in Christ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.