If you believe the stories you’re reading in newspapers about the Gospel of Judas, let me buy you a subscription to The Weekly World News.
GetReligion joins the parade of bloggers pointing out the obvious for the masses who seem determined to flaunt their gullibility.
Here’s where the fun starts:
Before I criticize the ridiculous ignorance of the media in covering this very old story, let me offer a critique of the church. If Christians knew anything about their history, if they knew anything about how the New Testament canon came to be formed, I doubt these stories would be met with more than a yawn.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Christians — and others — think the Bible was delivered to the church in present form upon Christ’s death and resurrection. In fact, the Gospels, which were written soon after Jesus’ time on earth, were fixed into the canon by the last quarter of the second century. Other books were included by 220 A.D. But there were many, many other books that were considered. And then there were some extremely heretical books that were never really considered. Various principles for inclusion were debated, but as a rule the books were tested against each other. So if the Apostles themselves said, for instance, that Jesus was betrayed by Judas, you would be hard-pressed to include a book written by a sect centuries later that said Judas was all good.
The thing is that for those who know their church history, Gnosticism is not news. It is a syncretistic movement with roots in pre-Christian times. It reached its zenith around the time the Judas Gospel was written. And it was based on the very non-Christian idea that its adherents possessed a secret message, bequeathed to a select few, that held the key to higher life.
For crying out loud, Irenaeus condemned the Judas writing in 180 AD in his book Against Heresies.
But if you’re so eager to find something that debunks Christianity that you’ll embrace any poorly researched claims that come along, I recommend you kick back for another viewing of The Last Temptation of Christ, in which Judas (Harvey Keitel) betrayed Jesus according to Jesus’s instructions.
But at least THAT story’s author admitted in the prologue of his fiction that his story was an imaginative embellishment of the true story, and not to be accepted as an alternate gospel.
But at least THAT story’s author admitted in the prologue of his fiction that his story was an imaginative embellishment of the true story, and not to be accepted as an alternate gospel.
He still managed to get kicked out of the church, though!
It seems ignorance (rather than stupidity) is the main problem here.
Hey, I’m still holding out for Harvey Keitel’s tell-all bio: Gospel of the Bronx Judas.
Andrew writes:
C’mon, Jeffrey, I know you’re better than this. To call those who disagree with you ‘dumb’ seems more like a tactic of that other Christian film critic we all know and admire. Sure, the Gospel of Judas is bunk, but I hardly think it’s appropriate to criticize the IQ of those who are sucked in by the hype. Perhaps ‘credulous’ would be more appropriate?
Andrew:
Oh, and I’ll take the otherworldliness and intellectual depth of ‘Last Temptation,’ despite its substantial flaws, over Mel’s sadomasochistic vision and evangelical media blitz any day (although ‘Jesus of Montreal’ is by far my favorite Jesus film).
First, to believe this, someone has to decide to believe “The Gospel of Judas” in its contradictions of the other four gospels. Why would you quickly do that, other than out of an eagerness to be contrary, or a zeal to snatch some quick and easy “de-bunking” of the gospel?
Second, you have to accept the mainstream media’s word that the Gospel of Judas is “rocking the Christian world” when a quick check of Christianity Today or other reliable Christian journals shows that no such thing is taking place.
So perhaps “dumb” is a strong word, but “ignorant” isn’t nearly strong enough.
The problem is not necessarily that some Christians are ‘dumb’ or even ‘ignorant.’ The real problem is that the media willfully distorts and embellishes language as a means of generating controversy and readership. With stories like this, which within scholarly circles are old news and not the least bit controversial, the goal is to upset the general public, not to make a valid statement in regards to history or theology. “Scholars” such as Elaine Pagels, who ride the pre-Easter-media-blitz-against-Christianity don’t realize that in the long run, the joke is on them.
Seems to me that the double joke of it all is that if this is the first time a complete version of this has surfaced, then we know now that Irenaeus knew exactly what he was talking about when he explained why it was condemened in the first place, and wasn’t being dishonest when he explained the reasons why.
Actually, according to Bruce Chilton, a widely respected scholar, there is reason to believe that Irenaeus was referring to a different Gospel of Judas.
Here is another of the same kind of thing. A little punchier.