Note: this topic was posted 04/26/2006. Thanks Caleb1411.
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.
Just as Pride lay behind the Fall in the first place. "Who is God to tell ME that I cannot eat of the fruit of this Tree?"
This guy is just clowning around and yanking your chain. To continue to take his crap seriously is pointless unless you intend to educate those who are serious. In that case you are doing and excellent job.
But it is clear "Enterprise" is just and ignorant Sophist.
Trust me, I DO understand this!
"As regards the Children of Israel settlement of the Promised Land perhaps I can work up some sympathy for child sacrificing idol worshipers some time but not today."
I can never work up any sympathy for child killers.
"And I think if you look at their history you will have to admit that they were on the losing end of most genocidal and military conflicts."
Can't argue much with that! Kind of a rough road for God's "chosen people."
When the universal goal of the Children of Israel is taken into consideration their road is not that "rough" since they play a significant and positive role in human development.
The two books should be renamed for clarification.
1. Rename the Old Testament as "The History of the Jews."
2. Rename the New Testament as "The life and teachings of Jesus the Savior, the man the Jews reject."
Perhaps in this way, some might understand a little more clearly why Christians might agree with Jews regarding the two books, and the two faiths.
1. No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian.
2. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish.
3. Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah.
The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by the non-Jewish world) is not proof for anything in the New Testament regarding a Messiah.
My view? Christians should ignore the Old Testament and accept the New Testament.
Note: this topic was posted 04/26/2006. Thanks Caleb1411.
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.
