Stir over Gospel of Judas may not be entirely justified

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?

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.

"The source you cite specifically claims that these naval officers were demoted, reassigned or relieved from command due to their own behavior and not due to the behavior of their subordinates.

"About one-third of the officers who lost their commands were relieved because of a major mishap — such as colliding with another vessel or grounding a ship, the death of a crew member or an aircraft accident."

Uh, what part of this didn't you understand? You are saying that the Commanding officer himself collided with another vessel, he personally ground the ship, caused the death of a crew member or caused an aircraft accident? You obviously know NOTHING AT ALL about the Navy!

Source: "About one-third of the officers who lost their commands were relieved because of a major mishap — such as colliding with another vessel or grounding a ship, the death of a crew member or an aircraft accident."

You: Uh, what part of this didn't you understand?

I understood all of it.

What you don't understand is that a collision with another vessel, a grounding, an aircraft accident and a crewmen's inexcusable death can all be due to officers issuing poor orders or failing to maintain safety standards or failing to implement protocols that would avoid problems.

Not once in the article is the scenario you envision mentioned: an officer sanctioned whose only offense was to assign a subsequently ill-behaved crewman to a specific task.

Giving a navigator incomplete or contradictory orders can result in such mishaps as collisions or groundings. Failing to establish strict safety protocols for flight crews can result in accidents. It is the commanding officers responsibility to ensure that proper safety regulations are in place and that movement orders are clear and accurate. That's part of his job.

Apparently you imagine the Navy to consist of vessels in which a commanding officer selects all his personnel, retires to a hermetically sealed box where he does nothing at all involving the day-to-day operation of the vessel he is in command of.

COs make dozens of direct decisions each day and they are held to account for their decisions.

They are not cashiered because one of their subordinates who was considered qualified by the Navy in his specialty was derelict or worse in his duty.

There is nothing in the UCMJ which even contemplates such a ridiculous injustice.

If a ship goes aground and it is because of a mistake by a subordinate, the Commander gets relieved.

Again, I ask what I asked before: cite one specific instance of this happening. Time, vessel, name of dismissed CO.

You make this claim, but you are completely unwilling to substantiate it - you just wave your hand a newsarticle that does not make the claim that you made.

And, for a vessel of any size to become grounded, a number of mistakes by various people have to be made - not just one crewmember.

LOL - spin THIS one!

"COMMANDER RELIEVED OF DUTY AFTER SHIP RUNS AGROUND

The Navy has relieved the commanding officer of the dock landing ship Pensacola for damaging the ship's port shaft propeller in a grounding incident off North Carolina.

The propeller has been replaced at a cost of about $145,000."

Cmdr. Jerry Henderson was removed from the ship and given a temporary shore assignment after an administrative hearing last week at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base.

The ship's navigator was also relieved of his duties; his name has not been released by the Navy.

Three crew members - two of them officers - received administrative letters, counseling and other disciplinary measures, said a spokesman for the Atlantic Fleet Surface forces. The punishments, handed down by Rear Adm. Leonard F. Picotte, commander of Amphibious Group Two, are under review by the chain of command.

The actions stem from an incident in late November when the Pensacola was conducting amphibious assault vehicle operations off North Carolina. It was at the completion of those exercises that the ship began vibrating excessively while reaching speeds of 16 and 18 knots.

The shaking went unreported for two weeks, until Dec. 11.

An investigation was started at Little Creek.

Divers inspecting the hull found that two of the five blades on the port shaft propeller were curled, indicating the Pensacola had struck ground sometime while at sea."

link

"Hyman Rickover, the father of our nuclear Navy, had this to say about responsibility:

“Responsibility is a unique concept. It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can pass the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.”

link

The good Admiral understood this priciple, YOU don't! Otherwise you wouldn't ask for proof. And instead of acting like a little kid you can type in the phrase "Commander relieved when ship goes aground." There are 67,500 hits. Is THAT enough for you? (I doubt it) BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOL - spin THIS one!

There is nothing to spin.

Look at the article.

The actions stem from an incident in late November when the Pensacola was conducting amphibious assault vehicle operations off North Carolina.

I'm going to assume that Henderson, as commanding officer, was present and directing these assault maneuvers.

If the ship's propeller was damaged during exercises, he's as responsible as any crewmember. They were following orders he personally gave.

It was at the completion of those exercises that the ship began vibrating excessively while reaching speeds of 16 and 18 knots. The shaking went unreported for two weeks, until Dec. 11.

Again, Henderson failed to notice or noticed and failed to report compromised seaworthiness in his vessel. That's his own fault - a clear dereliction of duty.

He was relieved of duty because of specific mistakes and infractions that he personally committed.

This is not an example of a man who gave perfect orders and did his duty to the utmost being dismissed because of actions undertaken by others on their own initiative.

The good Admiral understood this priciple, YOU don't!

He understood it and I understand it.

That's why he said: If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can pass the burden to someone else.

That's an important distinction - the Admiral was not endorsing someone being blamed for someone else shirking their responsibilities.

Your thesis still doesn't wash. The US military does not convict or punish people for other people's crimes. They only punish people who directly commit or collude in crimes. Like Henderson did.

Again, I find it personally offensive that you accuse the US military of deliberately committing grave miscarriages of justice against its own officer corps. You don't have a stitch of evidence to substantiate the charge.

"I'm going to assume that Henderson, as commanding officer, was present and directing these assault maneuvers."

Assume what you wish. It could have happened while he was present, and it could have happened while he was not personally present. His physical presence or lack thereof was not relevant to the investigation. He was held responsible, and was still disciplined. But hey, there are still 64,499 other cases to look at.

"He was relieved of duty because of specific mistakes and infractions that he personally committed."

That has not been proved.

"This is not an example of a man who gave perfect orders and did his duty to the utmost being dismissed because of actions undertaken by others on their own initiative."

There are no requirements in the Navy to issue "perfect orders."

"The US military does not convict or punish people for other people's crimes."

Yes it does. It is called "dereliction of duty." General Karpinski at Abu Grahib is an example. There are many others. All one has to do is search, that is, if one wishes to put forth the effort.

"Again, I find it personally offensive that you accuse the US military of deliberately committing grave miscarriages of justice against its own officer corps. You don't have a stitch of evidence to substantiate the charge."

Well, you need to take that up with the military. Officers have been disciplined a lot over the years for things they did not authorize, cause, or participate in.

It could have happened while he was present, and it could have happened while he was not personally present.

COs don't usually plan vacation time during maneuvers.

Ultimately, it's an immaterial distinction.

If he wasn't present to direct maneuvers that's an obvious strike against him for doing a poor job as a CO for not even showing up. If he was present to direct maneuvers and directed his vesel aground, that's also an example of Henderson personally doing a bad job.

That has not been proved.

The article itself states that he failed to report the unseaworthiness of his vessel for at least two weeks. That's unacceptable and that's entirely his fault.

It is called "dereliction of duty."

Dereliction of duty is a specific offense committed by the accused, not by someone other than the accused.

Dereliction of duty is just what it says - the accused failed to do the things they were personally obligated to do.

If you are not doing your job it is not someone else's fault - it is your fault.

Karpinski's job was to make sure that protocols were being followed, while it is clear that she was not even bothering to do the most rudimentary evaluations of her subordinates' performance. She herself personally failed to do the things she was supposed to do.

Officers have been disciplined a lot over the years for things they did not authorize, cause, or participate in.

Yet even a single documented example of such an occurrence seems to be quite elusive.

"If he wasn't present to direct maneuvers that's an obvious strike against him for doing a poor job as a CO for not even showing up."

True, Navy Commanders are required to be awake 24 hours a day. They can never sleep while at sea. They always have to be present.

"COs don't usually plan vacation time during maneuvers."

That was not alleged at any time.

"If he was present to direct maneuvers and directed his vesel aground, that's also an example of Henderson personally doing a bad job."

Again, "IF" proves nothing. That is speculative.

"The article itself states that he failed to report the unseaworthiness of his vessel for at least two weeks."

If it was unseaworthy, why did it continue operating at sea? There is nothing unusual about a damaged Navy ship still conducting operations or carrying on with a mission.

"Dereliction of duty is a specific offense committed by the accused, not by someone other than the accused."

Following the recommendation of a 10-member investigative team whose findings clearing four other top officers were preliminarily disclosed Friday [JURIST report], the US Army has relieved Brigadier General Jani Karpinski [Wikipedia profile] of her command for dereliction of duty in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. She was previously suspended [JURIST report]. The recommendation came after the panel found that allegations of dereliction were substantiated during its six-month investigation. Karpinkski, who will avoid criminal punishment, has received an official letter of reprimand from a senior Army general along with being relieved of her command.

General Karpinski was relieved of command for dereliction of duty. General Karpinski did not receive criminal punishment.

link

"She herself personally failed to do the things she was supposed to do."

She did not personally take the pictures and she was not personally charged with prisoner abuse. If her subordinates had not engaged in unauthorized activities, she would have not faced "Dereliction of Duty" charges.

True, Navy Commanders are required to be awake 24 hours a day. They can never sleep while at sea. They always have to be present.

They are not prohibited sleep. But they are, like doctors on call, supposed to be ready to awake and take command of a situation on a moment's notice. That's their job.

Again, "IF" proves nothing. That is speculative.

Doesn't matter. If he was present, he screwed up. If he was not present, he neglected his duty by failing to show up for important maneuvers. In either scenario, he failed to do his duty.

If it was unseaworthy, why did it continue operating at sea? There is nothing unusual about a damaged Navy ship still conducting operations or carrying on with a mission.

The vessel was compromised and was unable to perform adequately at the high end of its rated speed. navy vessels do sometimes operate while damaged, but the chain of command is duly notified that they are compromised and only fit for limited tasks. In this case, Henderson failed to notify the chain of command. And again, that's his fault and no one else's.

She did not personally take the pictures and she was not personally charged with prisoner abuse.

Of course not - you prove my point. She was not accused of crimes committed by others. Her personal failing was to not supervise her command properly and that's what she was accused of. These things were going on quite openly at Abu Ghraib and she never noticed because she failed to conduct proper reviews of her personnel.

If her subordinates had not engaged in unauthorized activities, she would have not faced "Dereliction of Duty" charges.

If she had been supervising them as closely as she was supposed to they would never have had the opportunity to do what they did. She, through her failure to properly supervise her subordinates, permitted such abuses to take place. That is her own fault.

She was not charged with the crimes her subordinates committed - she was not accused of abusing any prisoner. She was accused of infractions which she did in fact commit - namely her failure to keep a high standard of review for her subordinates.

General Karpinski was relieved of command for dereliction of duty. General Karpinski did not receive criminal punishment.

The UCMJ is a criminal code. One of the punishments for crimes committed under that code is demotion or reassignment - discharge and confinement are not the only sanctions. She was reassigned, so clearly she was found guilty of a criminal offense under the code. And she received the punishment appropriate to her crime.

"Doesn't matter. If he was present, he screwed up. If he was not present, he neglected his duty by failing to show up for important maneuvers. In either scenario, he failed to do his duty."

You proved my point. Present or not, the Commander is responsible. Thank you, you finally understand.

"In this case, Henderson failed to notify the chain of command. And again, that's his fault and no one else's."

Henderson was the top of the chain of command on the ship. In time, the damage was reported. Whether he knew the ship had gone around or not, whether or not someone had told him, he is responsible.

"She was not accused of crimes committed by others."

Again, wearily, she was relieved of command for Dereliction of Duty for failure of supervision. For the military to charge someone because of crimes committed by others, it would be a situation where a commander knew, but didn't report it, thus becoming an accessory. A good example of this would be Major Kaus. She didn't personally steal anything, however she believed some of the equipment was stolen. Nevertheless she was personally charged and convicted of theft, although the crime was committed by others.

The 656th's former company commander, Maj. Cathy Kaus, told the Chicago Tribune in Sunday's editions that although she knew the equipment had been stolen, she could not determine its owners. The Tribune said the vehicles were never reported stolen, according to court-martial transcripts.

Kaus is serving a six-month sentence. She and Birt have applied for clemency, which could restore their military benefits and change their dishonorable discharges.

link

Of course the ultimate example of charging and convicting Military Officers for crimes committed by their subordinates would be the trials at Nuremberg.

Present or not, the Commander is responsible.

Only because his failure to show up is in itself an offense. If you have a duty to perform and you don't show up for it, you are at fault. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's actions - the commander's failure to show up is his own damn fault.

Whether he knew the ship had gone around or not, whether or not someone had told him, he is responsible.

If he could not tell that his vessel was vibrating dangerously at 18 knots, he's an incompetent. No one should have to tell him. And if he was present at maneuvers like he should have been he would know whether or not his vessel went aground. Again, that's neglect and it's his own fault for not being there to witness it.

She didn't personally steal anything, however she believed some of the equipment was stolen. Nevertheless she was personally charged and convicted of theft, although the crime was committed by others.

Wrong. By receiving goods that she knew were not hers she committed theft as well. The crime was not just committed by others - she directly colluded with others in the commission of the crime.

Of course the ultimate example of charging and convicting Military Officers for crimes committed by their subordinates would be the trials at Nuremberg.

There are two ways of interpreting this completely ridiculous statement.

(1) The charitable way - which would imply that you actually think that the Nazi brass did not order the commission of war crimes, assist in the commission of war crimes and personally benefit from war crimes. However, each and every Nuremberg defendant aided and abetted the crimes of the Nazi regime by their own actions and by their own participation. If you order someone to murder civilians, you are just as guilty of murder as the soldier who carries out your murderous order.

(2) The uncharitable way - that you actually think the Holocaust was not an organized and planned atrocity but an accident, and that the nazi brass were good guys who were totally unaware of what was going on.

I'm going to assume that your totally preposterous statement is based on circumstance number 1.

In other words, I am really hoping that your ill-considered statement does not harbor any anti-Semitism behind it.

"Only because his failure to show up is in itself an offense. If you have a duty to perform and you don't show up for it, you are at fault. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's actions - the commander's failure to show up is his own damn fault."

That is something not in evidence here and is irrelevant and speculative.

"If he could not tell that his vessel was vibrating dangerously at 18 knots, he's an incompetent. No one should have to tell him. And if he was present at maneuvers like he should have been he would know whether or not his vessel went aground. Again, that's neglect and it's his own fault for not being there to witness it."

All true, and it goes to him bearing responsibility. But still, irrelevant and speculative.

"Wrong. By receiving goods that she knew were not hers she committed theft as well. The crime was not just committed by others - she directly colluded with others in the commission of the crime."

Correct. When she became aware that the items were stolen and did nothing, she became an accessory. But I already said that and you are agreeing with me.

"I'm going to assume that your totally preposterous statement is based on circumstance number 1."

You assume wrong - preposterously and uncharitably so, in both cases.

"In other words, I am really hoping that your ill-considered statement does not harbor any anti-Semitism behind it."

My statement was directed to the concept that people in positions of authority are sometimes prosecuted and punished for the misdeeds of people under their supervision, and for which a defense of "didn't know" or "I was only following orders" is rejected. I truly do not understand at all how you can inject the indecency of anti-semitim into THAT! It is over the top.

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.