For your enjoyment - the Gospel of Homer.
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.
And all of the Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church through most of its history, accept your credit gladly. Thanks so much!
They're welcome - including the ones that murdered people or hired others to do it for them.
Yep - your comment generated massive cofusion in me! ;-P
There are no "hard questions" these books will cause to be asked of Christians. Well, except for "how the hell could these Kooks have attracted anyone to believe in this gibberish?"
No they did not.
It is apparent that you have little knowledge of Gnosticism. They believed the world was created by an EVIL God not the God of Mercy and Love. They HATED the world even going so far as to condemn marriage and procreation.
They also PREDATED Christianity and were NOT suppressed by the Church nor were there writings hidden.
Actually there was NO Gnostic canon so just about anyone can claim to be Gnostic and could write a new Gnostic Gospel, the Gospel of Homer.
For your enjoyment - the Gospel of Homer.
Of course, even if you look at either the Crusades or the Inquisition at its worst, the number of people murdered by atheists in the 20th Century makes them look like pikers in comparision.
Hell the Turkish Moslems killed over a million Armenian Christians early this century. That was the first of the genocides. Moslems killed hundreds of thousands a year still.
Another question that could be asked is: "Father, is it true that in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church actually taught that there were evil dragons? And do you believe in dragons Father? Have you seen them? And If the Catholic Church believed in dragons then, but doesn't now, what other things did they preach that are no longer "operative?"
Since it took a couple of centuries for a formal church to come into being, how could gnostics be heretical to a church and a doctrine that didn't exist?
Well, let's go back through history. The Israelites were enslaved by those mean old Egyptians. Working with Moses, God freed them. Then they wandered around for 40 years, building up their numbers and raising an army. Then, they used that army to conquer and massacre. Yes, they would kill entire cities, men, women, children, and animals. But hey, it was ok because God told them to do it, and the Israelites were his chosen people. And maybe the people in those cities were like the gnostics believe - no permanent souls. So it wasn't as they invaded an established civilization and murdered their citizens. All they did was put down some animals. No harm there! If anything, the God of the Old Testament is more akin to the Allah of today's militant Moslems. Kill 'em all - it's ok with God.
There were isolated incidents wherein the inhabitants were killed but that does not compare to the history of Islam which gained power by murdering its way throughout the Middle East most of which was Christian and Jewish when Mo arrived on the scene. What was an exception was SOP for the Murderous Minions of Mad Mo.
If you want to review history keep at it and let me know what a religion based upon the idea that "Heaven is entered under and arch of Swords" is going to be like. Or that argues that you can Kill your way there as the Koran repeatedly tells us. Or which perverts the concept of martyr (one who is killed for his religion) into murderer (one who kills for his religion).
I encourage all to read the Koran if you have not it clearly illumines the inherent violence of Islam which is more a totalitarian political ideology than a religion in any case.
Now THAT's funny! The Israelites never gained power through war. Oh Noooooo. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Just a bunch of happy happy joy joy types weren't they? I mean, Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands. Yep, sounds like a right friendly group to me! And the cutting off of the penis's of thousands of troops killed in battle as proof of their deaths. Bushels of peckers for God. LOL! Sure sounds a lot like Allah and his goofballs to me.
But hey - these guys had a head start, and the world wasn't as populated before Christ as it was after Christ. And those good old Islamics sure caught on fast didn't they. Kill your enemies for God. He likes it, he really likes it! (If you don't believe it, just read the Old Testament!)
"If you want to review history keep at it and let me know what a religion based upon the idea that "Heaven is entered under and arch of Swords" is going to be like."
Hell if I know. I would have to ask the ancient Israelite Kings about that. Evidently THEY believed it! And so should you! You're the one defending them! Personally, I don't know what such a heaven would be like, and I don't want to know.
"I encourage all to read the Koran if you have not it clearly illumines the inherent violence of Islam which is more a totalitarian political ideology than a religion in any case."
President Bush calls it a Religion of Peace. He didn't call it a political ideology of peace. At least he knows it's a religion, unlike some posters here.
The Church was formal from the very beginning. Christ appointed twelve apostles, gave them a specific office and delegated specific authority to them for the discharge of that office. Within weeks of the Resurrection the apostles had rules for succession to the apostolic office in place and local churches had episkopoi (bishops or overseers), presbyteroi (elders or priests) and diakonoi (deacons or helpers) in place while Paul was still alive. The Church obviously had organized missions across the Mediterranean world at that time and it also was able to coordinate almsgiving and other charitable works over a broad geographical area.
However, the Gnostics were already heretics before Jesus was born - they specifically rejected the status of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the one true God.
Gnostic cults at that time already held that the world was created by a evil subsidiary deity and that material creation itself was evil.
The Gnostics had already rejected the orthodox teaching of the book of Genesis before they were even able to begin distorting and falsifying Jesus' teaching.
The answer to that question is no, it is not. Firebreathing, flying dragons were a popular folk superstition in the Middle Ages, but the Church never taught that such beasts exist.
The LXX text of the Book of Daniel makes mention of a dragon, but this is a generic term for an enormous snake, not a flying, firebreathing beast. The Book of Daniel does not describe any of the magical qualities ascribed to dragons in European folklore, it is just a very big, vicious snake living in a Babylonian temple. In Latin and Greek the words "draco" and "drakon" usually Englished as "dragon" were actually used by the Romans and the Greeks to refer to pythons. There were no pythons in Europe so for the uneducated European peasant of the VIIIth century a "draco" was clearly an enormous and frightening beast, but he had no mental picture of what it actually was. So folktales came up with a more and more elaborate picture of what a "draco" might be.
And If the Catholic Church believed in dragons then, but doesn't now, what other things did they preach that are no longer "operative?"
The Catholic Church never "believed in firebreathing dragons" any more than the Catholic Church "believed cats have nine lives" or the Catholic Church "believed that if a ring suspended over a woman's belly rotates in a circle she will have a girl."
Old wives' tales have nothing to do with Church teaching. It's like saying that "In the 1920s the Catholic Church taught that cigarettes are not harmful" simply because the vast majority of Catholics in the 1920s sisn't think that cigarettes were bad for you. The Church never said such a thing, let alone taught or asserted such a thing, but by your logic, it did, somehow.
Repressed? Or discarded? Why in the world would the Christian Church continue to reproduce the writings of their adversaries? The bulk of important Christian writings have disappeared, the work of men with impeccable orthodox views, but they have vanished . The famous Christian monks who copied stuff did not attempt to copy the Alexandrine library but only such documents that fell into their hands. Many of those likewise vanished over the course of time. Such historical documents we have are the result of chance. We actually know more about Rome during the first century before Christ than we do about the Third Century after Christ,
The History Channel reported that for 300 years, from about 1300 to 1600 the Catholic Church taught that dragons were real. So when you get the chance, write them a letter and tell them to correct their error.
Remember in future that "I saw it on late night cable TV" is not a valid scholarly reference. Note: not everything you see on TV is accurate.
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.