Posted on 12/16/2006 5:18:34 AM PST by NYer
Last April, the National Geographic Society made headlines with a completed translation of the second century gnostic text known as the Gospel of Judas – financed by the society and heavily promoted with tie-in books and a TV documentary – that would challenge Christianity's traditional understanding of the relationship between Jesus and his betrayer.
Its new special, "The Secret Lives of Jesus," makes similar sensational claims, airing as part of the "Explorer" series Sunday, Dec. 17, 9-10 p.m. EST on cable's National Geographic Channel.
Despite its provocative title, however, the program – as with the Judas expose – provides no explosive revelations but merely rehashes the same old theological chestnuts refuted by the church over the centuries.
Examining the so-called "lost gospels" through re-enactments and interviews with scholars, the film asks if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the "whole" Jesus story, suggesting that these alternative versions – which offer a radically different portrait of Christ -- may help "fill in the blanks." The idea that these ancient texts provide startling new information is a bit misleading. Church fathers such as St. Irenaeus, who wrote against the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D., knew of many of these and rejected them as false.
Among the manuscripts considered is the apocryphal infancy Gospel of James, a second-century collection of miraculous tales about Jesus' youth that lacks the historical veracity of the canonical Gospels. (The book was regarded as spurious by Origen of Alexandria in the third century.) One episode dramatized involves Jesus bringing clay pigeons to life. Another has a young, rather malicious Jesus striking a boy dead for bumping into him.
Of equally dubious purview is "The Unknown Life of Jesus," a 19th-century translation of an ancient Tibetan scroll which allegedly chronicles Jesus' travels through India during his "hidden years" (between the ages 12 and 30) to learn from Hindu mystics.
Given the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code," it's not unexpected that the survey includes discussion of gnostic texts such as the Gospels of Mary and Philip that allude to Mary Magdalene's special, possibly intimate, relationship with Jesus. But unlike Dan Brown, this program does not attribute any conspiratorial villainy to the church, and even counters many of Brown's bogus assertions: One expert, for instance, stresses that there's no credible evidence to support the Jesus-Mary Magdalene theory.
It is, however, suggested that these alternative versions constituted a pluralism of valid competing forms of Christianity vying for dominance in the first centuries after Christ. While doctrinal questions continued to be refined among the early Christian communities, this image hardly does justice to the capacity of those communities to sort out and affirm the essentials of the faith authoritatively taught from the beginning.
Even more disputable is the contention forwarded that the gnostic texts, though written much later than the canonical gospels, have something of equal value to say about Jesus. While these texts are of certain historical interest, they tell us more about the people who wrote them than about Jesus.
Hey, that's pretty good, WM. Nice find. :) Kawaii, while I know the above is Roman Catholic, I noticed that you immediately changed the subject in your response. :) Do you, or the Orthodox in general, agree with this part of the Catechism? Many, many Catholics have argued, it seems, in direct contravention of it.
I don't see anything particuraly wrong with it... I'm confused as to the context in which its written though.
OK, thanks. That makes sense.
I totally agree. That sounds very bad. I have counseled new believers (anyone, really) to never be afraid to answer a question with "I don't know, but I will get you the answer". That's SOP.
So if a Protestant has a disagreement with a Catholic about an interpretation, then the only thing to do is bring it before the Roman Catholic Church for a fair hearing. Got it. :)
And, as you well know, the Church, which wrote the NT, has always taught that Jesus was quite clear about building His Church upon Kepha/Cephas/Peter, the Rock. So, what's your beef?...:)
Well, I thought that you and WM both posted sections of the Catechism on this, that appeared to contradict. The latest position from you I have read is that it was both, which doesn't match your above.
And of course, I would respectfully disagree that the RCC "wrote" the NT. :) I would say that the Spirit "wrote" the NT through the authors, and allowing parts of the authors' personalities, etc., to come through. I give all the credit to God for writing God's word.
Thank you also. Kolo had the same answer. I think it's really interesting that two seminaries that focus so much on different cultures and languages come away with the exact same theology.
Gnosticism has a wide following in the United States. Few people have real knowledge of theology or traditional Christian teaching or the Bible. It is no longer taught in the schools, and not deeply in the schools that purport to be Christian. They go to college where they encounter a general atmosphere of skepticism, where the professors, for the most part are unbelievers. The entertainment media are filled with persons who are actively hostile to Christianity. The amazing thing is that so many Americans retain their faith despite all this. But confronted with such new "facts." most are defenseless.
You have to concede that the "Church." either in the Calvinist or the Catholic sense of the word, wrote the New Testament. It is now clear that unbelievers recongized that the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, that if they can discredit the Scriptures, they can discredit the Church. But that goes both ways. The Bible, at least the New Testament, consists of what traditional Christianity-- Latin or Eastern--says it is. The modern gnostics are trying to persuade the public that the "lost gospels" are as authenetic, or more so than the canonized gospels, They claim that they were suppressed after Constantine adopted Chrstianity as the State religion. Assuming that Constantine did adopted Christianity to butress his political position, one must also accept that he would have chosen the most powerful Christian factions, namely the Catholics. Certainly, this was no inconsiderable number. We have only to look at the number of bishops at Nicaea to see how numerous the Catholics were. Even without the power of the State behind them, even with the power of the State opposed to them, they have prevailed over their rivals.
Why do you think it's 'interesting?'
"Why do you think it's 'interesting?'"
Excellent question, K. FK, why DO you find that interesting? You should know that The Faith, the exact same Faith, has formed both of those cultures at least at the village level to this day and before the infection of those societies in the past, say, 150 years, by Western Enlightenment notions, at all levels.
Actually, to an untrained eye, a Gnostic text would seem perfectly 'orthodox.' What betrays Gnostic heresy in a text are specific words used in a specific context, which resemble the words used in orthodox Christianity (i.e. Sofia, Wisdom).
Also one would find theological constructs which actually 'make sense' (for example, the infusion of secret knowledge, or gnosis about God, such as +Paul's instant conversion on the road to Damascus) and could easily be construed as the workings of the 'indwelling Spirit.'
Gnosticism also posits that there is God in each and every one of us. Thus, +Paul's statement (Gal 1:16) that "God revealed His Son in me" and not "to" me is one of the many reasons Gnostics claim +Paul as one of their own. But such claims, of course, do not prove that +Paul was Gnostic.
They do show, however, how delicate the line of separation could be (which is why it took the Church Fathers three hundred years to sift through some 200 scrolls and determine with certainty which of them were orthodox and which were Gnostic fraud).
Most church-going people do not realize that there is a fine line between an 'indwelling Holy Spirit' and 'God in me' concept.
Books talking Gnostic trash are like drugs: if there are no buyers, they will go away. Thus we can't blame America's Gnostic leanings on what's in Barnes and Noble; people buy them because they don't know any better, and they don't know any better because the "me-me'me" mindset believes that each man knows what's best for him/her.
So, as long as you have buyers, you will have Gnostic trash on the shelves (the business doesn't care what they sell as long as it sells, and if they don't someone else will).
vices will exist and sell as long as there are customers.
I draw pretty sharp distinctions on this topic, so yes, men of the "Church", penned the words and ideas. I just hold that those ideas came directly from God. In my mind there is way too much cohesiveness in the NT for the books to have been written independently, rather than under a divine inspiration.
It is now clear that unbelievers recognized that the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, that if they can discredit the Scriptures, they can discredit the Church.
That sounds reasonable.
The modern gnostics are trying to persuade the public that the "lost gospels" are as authentic, or more so than the canonized gospels, They claim that they were suppressed after Constantine adopted Christianity as the State religion.
The Gnostics would have to explain what they think the Spirit's role was in assembling the NT. They would have to say "none". If I am following your overall point, though, I would certainly agree that Catholicism was the dominant faith within Christianity at the time, and always has been in terms of numbers (as far as I know).
Kosta: "Why do you think it's 'interesting?'"
Excellent question, K. FK, why DO you find that interesting? You should know that The Faith, the exact same Faith, has formed both of those cultures at least at the village level to this day and before the infection of those societies in the past, say, 150 years, by Western Enlightenment notions, at all levels.
Since I don't know much about village culture, I was thinking more of on a national level. Since the 1940's, one culture grew up behind the Iron Curtain, and one did not. So, I thought it was good that the faiths remain the same today. I think American culture has driven several Protestant denominations right into the sewer, and that's just in my lifetime. I admit that and lament it. So, I just meant my remark as a compliment. :)
The Spirit works through men, and their natural gifts which they owe to God. What they heard from Jesus, what he heard about Jesus from the Apostles, is the truth and that is what is written.
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.