The Gospel of Judas
Jun. 14th, 2006 11:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easyObviously the Gospel of Judas has a huge oo-er factor - history's greatest villain really a hero! Secret teachings of Jesus revealed! etc. Its actual significance is that it gives scholars insight into the early development of Christianity. "A long-buried side of Christianity is re-emerging," says the National Geographic.
Scholars have known for centuries that the document once existed, and were extremely excited to rediscover it. National Geographic's May cover story focusses on how the papyrus was rescued and restored, while The New York Review of Books' article (8 June) gives more insight into the document itself.
Briefly, the Gospel tells the story of how Jesus took Judas aside and secretly gave Judas the job of betraying him; Jesus goes on to reveal a new cosmology to Judas, about which more in a moment. The NYT review suggests that the document might have been written by a splinter group of Christians who were under attack from the established church, and so identified with Judas, the rejected Apostle who they turned into a hero. The aim of the Gospel may have been to explain where evil comes from - not just Judas' evil act, paradoxically part of a divine plan, but any evil in a world ruled by an all-powerful, good God.
NGM notes that there were all sorts of controversies as the new religion took shape, with factions arguing over whether Christians should follow Jewish law, over whether Christ was divine, and so forth. The NYT review suggests the Judas Gospel is partly an attack on the promotion of martyrdom by Christian leaders, a controversial topic amongst early Christians.
Now, the NYT reviewer cautions us that "Gnosticism" is "a construction of modern scholars" - the authors of documents such as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas probably just thought of themselves as Christians. By lumping together various texts as "Gnostic", the reviewer points out, the differences between them forgotten (much as the Founding Fathers are blurred together) and stuff gets read in.
Nonetheless, here are some of the "basic tenets" of Gnosticism as outlined in the book. The world is hopelessly evil, created not by the real God but by a lesser evil being. Some (but not all) human beings contain a "divine spark" and can be saved; salvation requires special spiritual knowledge.
When I read this outline, I knew at once there was nothing here for me. The Gnostics were mystics - communicating directly with God, without intercedents such as priests - and honoured the female (the Judas Gospel mentions their goddess, Barbelo) but there their resemblance to most modern Pagans and to my own beliefs stops. I and other Pagans celebrate the physical world - the "ground of all being" as Starhawk calls it - and honour nature and our bodies. The "divine spark" is everywhere in nature, not just in the chosen few.
OTOH, the elitist idea that the truth is a secret, and that you need someone to whisper it to you, has long been a part of occultism. The explosion of Wicca and Paganism into the mainstream has been a mixed blessing, and has annoyed hell out of some long-term practitioners, but it has thrown open doors which were once firmly closed against hoi polloi. Like Buddhism or indeed Christianity, the basic concepts and practices of Wicca are simple and straightforward and anyone can grasp them.
I think the Gospel of Judas has sparked ire from some Christians not because its narrative directly endangers their faith, but because of the disturbing reminder that the gospels - all of them, canon or "Gnostic" - are human productions, and that there was a time when the tenets of Christian faith were still being debated by human beings. Had certain factions held sway or certain votes gone a different way, modern Christians could be worshipping in a very different way.
Scholars have known for centuries that the document once existed, and were extremely excited to rediscover it. National Geographic's May cover story focusses on how the papyrus was rescued and restored, while The New York Review of Books' article (8 June) gives more insight into the document itself.
Briefly, the Gospel tells the story of how Jesus took Judas aside and secretly gave Judas the job of betraying him; Jesus goes on to reveal a new cosmology to Judas, about which more in a moment. The NYT review suggests that the document might have been written by a splinter group of Christians who were under attack from the established church, and so identified with Judas, the rejected Apostle who they turned into a hero. The aim of the Gospel may have been to explain where evil comes from - not just Judas' evil act, paradoxically part of a divine plan, but any evil in a world ruled by an all-powerful, good God.
NGM notes that there were all sorts of controversies as the new religion took shape, with factions arguing over whether Christians should follow Jewish law, over whether Christ was divine, and so forth. The NYT review suggests the Judas Gospel is partly an attack on the promotion of martyrdom by Christian leaders, a controversial topic amongst early Christians.
Now, the NYT reviewer cautions us that "Gnosticism" is "a construction of modern scholars" - the authors of documents such as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas probably just thought of themselves as Christians. By lumping together various texts as "Gnostic", the reviewer points out, the differences between them forgotten (much as the Founding Fathers are blurred together) and stuff gets read in.
Nonetheless, here are some of the "basic tenets" of Gnosticism as outlined in the book. The world is hopelessly evil, created not by the real God but by a lesser evil being. Some (but not all) human beings contain a "divine spark" and can be saved; salvation requires special spiritual knowledge.
When I read this outline, I knew at once there was nothing here for me. The Gnostics were mystics - communicating directly with God, without intercedents such as priests - and honoured the female (the Judas Gospel mentions their goddess, Barbelo) but there their resemblance to most modern Pagans and to my own beliefs stops. I and other Pagans celebrate the physical world - the "ground of all being" as Starhawk calls it - and honour nature and our bodies. The "divine spark" is everywhere in nature, not just in the chosen few.
OTOH, the elitist idea that the truth is a secret, and that you need someone to whisper it to you, has long been a part of occultism. The explosion of Wicca and Paganism into the mainstream has been a mixed blessing, and has annoyed hell out of some long-term practitioners, but it has thrown open doors which were once firmly closed against hoi polloi. Like Buddhism or indeed Christianity, the basic concepts and practices of Wicca are simple and straightforward and anyone can grasp them.
I think the Gospel of Judas has sparked ire from some Christians not because its narrative directly endangers their faith, but because of the disturbing reminder that the gospels - all of them, canon or "Gnostic" - are human productions, and that there was a time when the tenets of Christian faith were still being debated by human beings. Had certain factions held sway or certain votes gone a different way, modern Christians could be worshipping in a very different way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
continued from previous post (I'm long-winded)
Date: 2006-06-16 01:22 am (UTC)That being said, sin is sin, and every since the death of Christ, all sins have been forgiven. Yes, even the sins you've committed, and have yet to commit. The doctrine of heaven is such that you can go there if you enter into a relationship with God through Christ Jesus.
That's it. All the rest has been tacked on.
We are a "disorganized religion" if we are a religion at all.
As for The Gospel of Judas, The Da Vinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Life of Brian, and all the rest, they are not a threat to Christianity. They are merely brain-chaff for those who choose to believe in them. The truth is out there, and it is plain to see. University professors, to this day, stringently examine all possibilities, to determine if maybe those other books might have some worth as religious texts, and not, if I might say, "Bible fanfic."
The majority of legitimate scholars (though I can't speak for majorities of scholars, per se) do not believe in Leigh and Baigent. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is generally regarded as having been discredited years ago. They only sell it now because of Dan Brown, and seekers of the sensational.
This whole topic, I think, stems from boredom. People don't want to believe the boring old Bible, so they look for a more interesting version. Maybe Jesus got married. Maybe Judas and Jesus fixed the game. Maybe Mary Magdalene was the most important disciple, and the Roman Catholic Church covered it up because they though sexism might be fun. This is not the result of truth-seekers looking for answers. If a sincere seeker of truth wanted the answers, he or she would look to the most reputable research first, long before looking to Leigh, Baigent, Dan Brown, or The Gospel of Judas.
As an afterthought, I should note that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, nor was she anything of the sort. We do not know anything about her, besides the few verses in which she appears. Her story is not told, and the story of the adulteress, commonly attributed to Mary, does not mention her by name. That was something a pope made up, and we all seem to have stuck with it.
Finally, remember the words of Jesus:
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret." John 18:20
You can believe the Gospel of John, or you can believe the Gospel of Judas. It's your choice.
Re: continued from previous post (I'm long-winded)
Date: 2006-06-16 04:00 am (UTC)Actually, no. As both the NY Review and NGM make clear, this is not a question of choosing whether or not the Gospel of Judas is historically or theologically correct. What scholars are interested in are the insights it gives us into early Christians and their conflicts.
You'd be very welcome to read what I've posted and what commenters here have posted, and respond to those remarks. Otherwise, please leave. Canned responses to the controvery are unwelcome here.