Ship of Fools: The Gospel of Judas

Thread: The Gospel of Judas Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000011

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :

Today's NY Times has an article about the newly released Gospel of Judas, which purports to be from about 1,700 years ago and casts Judas in quite a different light, as the disciple who understood Jesus better than any of the others.

"The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus."

I'm not sure this will have much impact on believers or non-believers, but what do you think?

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :

I think it will not have much impact on believers or unbelievers.

Gnostics, on the other hand...

They get to say "Aha! I told you so!"

And then note everyone else's reticence.

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

Is there any way to check the authenticity of such documents?

and here is another article on the subject from the Chicago Tribune.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

I think Judas knew full well his role and accepted it. It strains credulity that he would act without express knowledge bestowed by JC. To overcome personal emotional attachment with foreknowledge and allow himself to become a pariah, makes him a hero to some.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

This time next year The Gospel of Judas will be in the bargain bin of a cheap bookshop near you. The Bible on the other hand will be selling hand over fist at exorbitant prices as per usual. [Smile]

[ 07. April 2006, 06:58: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on :

It'll increase our knowledge of Gnostic Christianity, but I doubt it'll have much effect on orthodox Christianity.

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Is there any way to check the authenticity of such documents?

Yes. Irenaus mentioned the Gospel of Judas in 180, so there certainly was one. And the papyrus has been carbon dated, and tested by multispectral imaging, and the ink had been analysed, and the handwriting, all of which apparently place the manuscript c. 300, so it seems unlikely to be a modern forgery.

It looks like the real deal.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

We have a Gospel of Judas thread in Kerygmania, where I suggest issues of authenticity and similar "Bible" issues might be discussed.

I suggest we keep this thread for discussing the theology issues surrounding Judas.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[ 07. April 2006, 07:58: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here is that extract from Irenaeus

quote:
Here is the Roberts-Donaldson translation of this section from Irenaeus:

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

The Gospel of Judas is, genuinely, an old document - and also fanciful. The Irenaeus reference comes from his 5 volume work on heresies, written towards the end of the 2nd century. The underlying concepts of Gnostic cosmology which lie behind the Irenaeus quote can be found here.

In order to understand the meaning and significance of old docs like this, it really is necessary to do some hard work to get at the underlying ideas. A "vox pop" reading can be very misleading. This great post by Louise on one of the Da Vinci Code threads illuminates the general problem. In particular, this quote gets to the heart of the matter.

quote:
I think it comes down to people wanting the sense of superiority which comes from 'knowing' about deep issues like the basis of Christianity, the role of women in the church, the formation of the NT canon, but they can't be bothered actually doing the bloody work you need to come to a scholarly understanding of these issues or are incapable of it. Try asking the buggers to learn to read the NT in the original, or to learn enough Latin to work on medieval church history or even to read a few scholarly works on New Testament criticism and they can't be bothered - but read a single novel and that makes them instant experts who are superior to the people who have actually spent years learning the necessary disciplines to bring us closer to answers in these fields.

It's part of modern anti-intellectualism - everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's regardless of how ill-qualified it is. People are suspicious of experts - and when you see what the theological 'experts' have said for hundreds of years about women and gay people to just give two examples, it's easy to see why people are leery of them, but they've rushed to the other extreme of taking people who know f*ck all - like Dan Brown as authorities, just because what they say sounds exciting and chimes with their dislike of traditional religion. Few people can be bothered with the discipline and work which actually goes into understanding these things critically for themselves.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sorry DS - cross posted. On reflection, I think I straddled both fences!

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

That's OK.

Since my post, I have had received certain representations from the Abbott of the Priory of Sion, who points out that:

quote:
wild speculation about our Lord based on second or third century heretical documents.

belongs on the Da Vinci Code board.

I agree.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

I heard a report on The Today Show this am which says that scholars who have examined the text believe it is a 3rd cent. copy of a much older document. How can one determine such a thing?

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

From a theological standpoint, I always feel suspicious when early writings have Jesus taking one person aside and giving them the "real story", as many of the gnostic writings seem to represent. That seems very unJesuslike to me, to say one thing to the public and then something very different to a few selected honorees.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

I agree Laura. Neither does it have the poetry of say the gospel of John or the meticulousness of Matthew or Luke. It reminds me for some reason of the book of Mormon. Bits that sound familiar but with some weird theology and strange names mixed in.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes. As he said at his trial, "I have always taught publicly and have said nothing in secret. Why don't you ask some of those here? They know what I said,...." or words to that effect.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I heard a report on The Today Show this am which says that scholars who have examined the text believe it is a 3rd cent. copy of a much older document. How can one determine such a thing?

My understanding is that it basically comes from an understanding of how language changes. Words change their meanings slightly, grammar changes slightly, common idioms and metaphors go in and out of fashion, etc. A scribe making a copy of a document is very unlikely to translate it into the contemporary version of the language, and so a copied document holds within it the language in which it was written.

The same is true of any language. If someone discovered an old letter in the bottom of a drawer at some archive then just by assessing the way it's written would give you a good idea of when it was written by comparing it to other examples of English of known date - does it seem similar to the English of Chaucer, Dickens or Shakespeare?

Posted by koffshun (# 11227) on :

quote:
Yes. As he said at his trial, "I have always taught publicly and have said nothing in secret. Why don't you ask some of those here? They know what I said,...." or words to that effect.

although, twice in the gospel of Mark it is said that Jesus "explained [the parables] privately wit his disciples."

nice and complicated, huh! not that i personally think there's the basis for a conspiracy here, but these two verses have been the foundation for such in the past.

on a slight tangent, i saw an advert for a documentary on "the truth behind the moon landings" which were, apparently, faked.

if i weren't so naturally cynical, this alone would make me lose all hope for humanity!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I heard a report on The Today Show this am which says that scholars who have examined the text believe it is a 3rd cent. copy of a much older document. How can one determine such a thing?

According to The Independent newspaper in the UK, 'the manuscript has been carbon-dated to around 300AD, it is likely to be a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript written around the year 150AD, in the same period when the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were also written down.' - note the mistake: most scholars think the synoptics were written between 68 and 80 AD.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I heard a report on The Today Show this am which says that scholars who have examined the text believe it is a 3rd cent. copy of a much older document. How can one determine such a thing?

3rd century copy by means of carbon dating. Much older original (2nd century) because Irenaeus refers to it in his well attested critique of heresies (written towards the end of the 2nd century). So the earliest evidence about the gospel implies that the original is a) 2nd century and b) was believed in the 2nd century to be hokum.

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :

I just wonder who actually wrote it. Surely not Judas since he hanged himself shortly after he did the deed. And if he was so sure he was doing exactly what Jesus wanted, why would he be so remorseful? I can't imagine too many people will accept this as much more than the incoherent babbling of some gnostic malcontent. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

Thank you, shipmates, for helping me understand how the dating was done.

Next quesiton: Why is all this Gnostic literature coming out of Egypt? Was this a center a Gnosticism?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

IIRC, it was a major centre. There was a load of gnostic literature buried at a place called Nag Hammadi which was discovered in the 1940s, so most of our primary texts come from the region. Prior to that, interested scholars had to try to deduce what was going on from Irenaeus.

Of course, it is always a major fantasy that one day someone will stumble across some historical find and the entire history of everything you ever knew will have to be rewritten. In the seventies everyone thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls were going to undermine the history of Christianity and the Essenes were all the rage. Now its the Gnostics and their Gospels. There's a load of papyrus from another site in Egypt currently being examined as technology means we can now decipher it. Watch out for that being the most earth shattering thing since sliced custard in a few years time.

Posted by Anglicub (# 3413) on :

I'm just seriously annoyed at the National Geographic Society for their timing. If (according to the video from the BBC I saw) they've had the manuscript since 1970, why wait to publish a translation until the week the movie is coming out? That's opportunism, not scholarship.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I doubt if it's related to the movie. Looks more like it's to coincide with Easter, when more folks perpipherally aware of the facts would pick up on it and say, "Ohhh, see, all that Bible stuff could be just anything!"

It'll be interesting to have a read, i suppose.

Was anyone here aware of another gnostic "gospel" that would have more bearing on the board we're on? There is actually, among the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, a purported Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]. More gnostic malarkey, of course, so I guess I shouldn't have brought it up if I didn't want to discuss it, or derail the thread, or --- oh, well, just wondering...

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Gospel of MM is fragmentary.

Scroll down the page to read what's left of it, in translation.

Gospel of Mary Magdalen

FF

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

Anglicub, it's not the National Geographic Society's fault - the manuscript has had a colorful journey since its discovery in the 1970s, to say the least - locked away in a secret safe deposit box, high level price negotiations, etc. Fascinating story - apparently, the time in the safe deposit box caused it to deteriorate into thousands of pieces.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm just so darned frustrated--I know already I'm going to be having thirty dozen conversations with various half-convinced unbelievers (mostly teenagers) who need to have gnosticism explained to them in words of one syllable or less, and who will then say, "Of course, you just say that because you're a pastor's wife." [Mad]

To Hell with the idiots on TV and elsewhere who will say anything sensational to raise their ratings. Just as long as it isn't true.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I heard a report on The Today Show this am which says that scholars who have examined the text believe it is a 3rd cent. copy of a much older document. How can one determine such a thing?
According to The Independent newspaper in the UK, 'the manuscript has been carbon-dated to around 300AD, it is likely to be a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript written around the year 150AD, in the same period when the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were also written down.' - note the mistake: most scholars think the synoptics were written between 68 and 80 AD.

Yeah, note the bullshit. The implication is clear enough - if it is as contemporary as the gospels, why believe one rather than the other? And if it is late as that, why believe either? Despite the pretty settled majority opinion that the gospels were written down significantly earlier - plus the Pauline evidence dating back to the late AD40s and 50s. Classic misrepresentation - I'm writing to the Independent about it.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
I'm just so darned frustrated--I know already I'm going to be having thirty dozen conversations with various half-convinced unbelievers (mostly teenagers) who need to have gnosticism explained to them in words of one syllable or less, and who will then say, "Of course, you just say that because you're a pastor's wife

It's not necessary to convince them that the Judas gospel is a fake is it, just be grateful that they're actually engaged enough to inquire about it and encourage their interest, as alluded to elsewhere they will no doubt be too lazy to actually do much further study anyway.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Yeah, but since they're too lazy to do any further study, they'll just get that smug feeling that all those pesky Christians are obviously off their heads, since the bible is so blatantly wrong anyway, as the gospel of Judas / Thomas / Dan Brown / whoever else proves.

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm just so darned frustrated--I know already I'm going to be having thirty dozen conversations with various half-convinced unbelievers (mostly teenagers) who need to have gnosticism explained to them in words of one syllable or less, and who will then say, "Of course, you just say that because you're a pastor's wife."

I would have thought that the obvious response to this was

"(Sigh) Oh well, of course you're going to think that way - you're teenagers, you can't really be expected to understand complicated issues properly"

[Razz]

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :

If anyone saw the National Geographic special on "The Gospel of Judas" (which featured commentary by Elaine Pagels but happily none by John Dominic Crossan [Two face]

), it was noteworthy that their primary source for the date of the Coptic MS was the fact that Irenaeus of Lyons had condemned it in the 2nd C. They opined that it must have first existed in Greek, and the Coptic copy that was being examined by Swiss MS restorers was a slightly later translation.

Interestingly, the Coptic monks featured on the program did not comment--they just walked around fully vested, swinging incense.

Leetle M.
Why all this furore when all the churches seem to have their own styles of biblical criticism going anyhow is beyond me.... St. Irenaeus' word on it is good enough for me.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Humblebum! [Killing me]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

Is the Gospel of Judas actually mentioned anywhere in the Da Vinci Code?

T.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nope, the subject got here by this reasoning.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nope, the subject got here by this reasoning.

Hm. I must have missed that when I scanned the thread earlier. Isn't that policy giving DVC undue credit for textual scholarship? I'm not sure that discussing the content of a recently-translated document counts as wild speculation.

T.

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :

I was also surprised it got moved from the "serious discussion" of Purgatory to a fictional realm. It may be of questionable authorship and merit but I think it deserves more than being relegated to Dan Brown status.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Ultraspike, Teufelchen and anyone else minded to discuss where this thread should be, you all know that the place for discussing or questioning host decisions is in The Styx. If you want to query what board this thread should be on, then start a thread there.

Thank you

Louise
DVC Board Host

[ 10. April 2006, 22:08: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Just an ob, before resuming discussion. The intro to these boards includes the following statements

quote:
Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Why did the church suppress the secret Gospels? Did Leonardo and others guard the secret of the Holy Grail? Has the church been censoring the truth for the past 2,000 years? What do you think?

That makes the Hosts' decision quite reasonable IMO - nor do I see any relegation involved in the move.

Back on the main drag, I think Leetle Masha has a good point. Irenaeus' critique of heresies was not a work written in ancient academic cloisters. He was a bishop who had seen folks martyred for their faith, but whose martyrdom was discounted as unnecessary by some gnostic-influenced believers, who appeared to be more interested in, and influenced by, elitist spiritual speculation, second blessings and secret books.

Elaine Pagels, (who LM mentions), is by no means an orthodox (or Orthodox) Christian but in her commentary on these times and the Irenaeus critique (in her book "Beyond Belief") she makes the following observation.

"..we can see that Irenaeus characterization, however hostile, is right. Those who wrote and treasured innovative works ... were implicitly criticising, intentionally or not, the faith of most believers". (Chapter 4)

Pagels thinks "babies went out with the bathwater", but she does not deny that there was a lot of bathwater. And Irenaeus was much nearer the action and its consequences than any of us. His witness and observations on these books - and those who were interested in them - deserves serious attention.

[ 10. April 2006, 22:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :

The presenters on the Geographic special seemed to be considering the "Gospel of Judas" as an example of "gnostic gospels", it's true; but those same presenters, Mrs. Pagels and a couple of other theologians whose names did not "stick" in my mind--they were from a couple of unis such as Chapman university and some theological school, it may have been Fuller, but I'm not sure--anyhow, those presenters did not seem to be equating antiquity with authority (a temptation some of our modern scholars look as if they have trouble resisting).

I was intrigued by the pictures of the Coptic writing on the papyrus pages. It looked very much like Greek. My late, great spiritual father often substituted for our local Coptic priests because they liked him and thought him to be "their kind of person" even though he was a regular Orthodox Christian rather than a Coptic Christian; he could read Coptic and he took us to visit, on a trip to Egypt I'll never forget, a couple of Coptic monasteries out in the desert. The monks in the St. Bishoi monastery had lots and lots of Coptic books, hand-lettered in the same way those MS pages were, and they just kept them on plain metal shelves, out in the air of their libraries. Nothing seemed to do them harm, because the atmosphere was so dry.

Best wishes,

Leetle M.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I think I'd like to reiterate here what I said on the other thread about the authority of the sacred texts:

If the sole authority of the scripture lies in the authenticity of its authorship, (eg: that the gospel of Matthew was actually written by the disciple Matthew), then every one of those texts is in trouble. Not a single one's authorship can be authenticated beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very shaky premise upon which to base one's faith in their authority, and it's bound to be attacked again and again.

If the authority of the scripture DOES NOT lie in the divine origin of its content, (ie: a revelation through the Holy Spirit), then it doesn't matter WHO wrote it down, or WHO claims authorship, it can have no authority whatsoever.

So I have to answer the following questions for myself:

Does the Holy Spirit speak to me through the words in these texts?

Does it speak to me in every word, or only in some?

Is it possible that some of these words are filtered through the author's own worldview?

If so, which ones?

Is it possible that the reason some messages might not seem God-breathed to me now is because I have not yet absorbed and understood some other messages?

So in my opinion, it doesn't matter a single bit that Luke wasn't authored by Luke or that Titus wasn't authored by Paul, or that Judas wasn't authored by Judas.

What matters to me are the answers to these 5 questions.

FF

Posted by Righteous Rebel (# 7524) on :

Dr. Elaine Pagels, a scholar who has spent many years researching Gnostic writings, was on NBC's Today show last week, discussing the Lost Gospel of Judas.

I believe that most people will yawn and hope it goes away, but this is really of tremendous import. People need to stop blithely listening to their church leaders and taking what they say as Gospel and really get into the word themselves.

And a little praying wouldn't hurt, either, because "there's a whole lot of shakin' goin' on!" [Biased]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

On FF's 5 questons:-
1] Does the Holy Spirit speak to me through the words in these texts?
2] Does it speak to me in every word, or only in some?
3] Is it possible that some of these words are filtered through the author's own worldview?
4] If so, which ones?
5] Is it possible that the reason some messages might not seem God-breathed to me now is because I have not yet absorbed and understood some other messages?

Wouldn't this depend on knowing the context of the 'words' you are reading? The background, what people were thinking at the time - as far as we can? If we can get a good feeling for the world-view of the human authors, then shouldn't we have a better idea of understanding the text and having it speak to us today (in our own worldviews)?

It seems to me we need to look at the bigger picture of passages and their contexts, not rely on the 'word' level alone.

The key to this is to see that we are always dealing with human interpretation - which is always weak! So we will never get full understanding of everything in the text.

Posted by Cymruambyth (# 10887) on :

Even dear old Irenaeus had his moments of heresy - he believed that Jesus was still on earth 98 years after the resurrection, which would rather preclude the Ascension and the pentecost wouldn't you think? And if that ain't heresy.........

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Nigel,

Welcome to the Ship!

I think truthfully answering question 5 allows one to reserve judgment about those passages one has doubt about. I think it just depends on whether one believes one can ever know, or never know, the answers.

If one believes one can never know the answers, then what's the point of asking the questions? Fair enough, carry on.

If one believes that God has equipped us with all the faculties we need in order to rightly receive and understand His word, then answering the questions seems a pretty important process.

I believe God put me here with everything I need in order to receive and understand His word, and I believe He does not intend for me to seek answers, and not find.

I trust the ways He reveals Himself through the scripture, and the scripture's living intersection with my own life.

If you've never had a moment when the lightbulb goes on, when you say "D'oh! NOW I understand what it means when it says.....", then I hope you do. You'll know it when you know it.

Cheers
FF

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :

Let's see. We here from folks about how Christianity is all about guilt about sex yadda yadda.

We get the gnostic gospels, such as Judas, in which Christ asks Judas to betray him so he can be freed from this ever so nasty body.

Meanwhile, orthodox Christianity is truly about the wonder of the incarnation.

Someone has a good PR agent.

The Gospel of Judas doesn't make one iota of an impact on the understanding of orthodox Christianity. It does enlighten us further why certain gnostic sects were so horribly mistaken.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
So I have to answer the following questions for myself:

Does the Holy Spirit speak to me through the words in these texts?

Does it speak to me in every word, or only in some?

I have a similar set of questions. Except that I don't see Scripture as existing for me, but for the Church. So, the question is "does God speak to the Church through the Scriptures?". There is a strong sense in which it's axiomatic that through the Scriptures we have God does speak to the Church, because the Church chose to recognise them because the Church heard God speak through them. Conversely, the Church either failed to hear God, or indeed heard something other than God, speak through some other documents.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Thanks FF & Alan,

Linked to these questions, I suspect, must be these: Are we entitled to expect the DOH! factor (good point FF!) from reading, say, the Gospel of Judas - or even from one of the acpocryphal texts? If it happens, how do we treat it? Or if, say, a text alleging to be Paul's letter to the church in Laodicea came to light and had all the halmarks of being such, should it be added to the canon (and which canon...)?

I think I am happy with the idea that we may not know ALL the answers, but that shouldn't stop us from asking the questions and using all the skills at our disposal to try and find out the answers. That might mean we run the risk of reading the bible too subjectively, though - what means DOH! to me won't to the next Christian, who might even have come to a incompatible DOH! on the same text as mine. Is this the role and fate of theology?

Still grappling on that one...
[Smile]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
Dr. Elaine Pagels, a scholar who has spent many years researching Gnostic writings, was on NBC's Today show last week, discussing the Lost Gospel of Judas.

I believe that most people will yawn and hope it goes away, but this is really of tremendous import. People need to stop blithely listening to their church leaders and taking what they say as Gospel and really get into the word themselves.

And a little praying wouldn't hurt, either, because "there's a whole lot of shakin' goin' on!"

Could you be a bit more precise? I've read "The Gnostic Gospels" and "Beyond Belief". I think Elaine Pagels writes very well and explains her own viewpoint very well. For example, she understands very well the sense of betrayal Irenaeus (and Tertullian) felt when the faith of some Christians who were persecuted, tortured and martyred was rubbished by some of those influenced by Gnostic thought. I think her line of argument has not been that there was any great conspiracy to suppress the truth. Much more that the crucible of events in the 2nd century - and in particular the writing of Irenaeus' 5-volume treatise on heresies - had, as she sees it, some unfortunate effects.

Relating back to a post you wrote on one of the other threads, the bullets which Constantine fired had been made more than a century earlier. The debate about the elitism, penchant for secret knowledge and wild imagination of the Gnostics was not fought out in some ivory tower, or fourth century political/religious arena. It was fought out, passionately, with the hearts and minds of real people at stake, from the second century onwards. The eventual winners of that debate were those who believed with every fibre of their being that the faith handed down by the apostles was being poisoned by fruit from a wild tree.

Now people can differ, honestly, about how they see this vital period in history. But most of this was known, certainly to serious students, before Nag Hammadi, or the explanations of Pagels. The writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and others, revealed the battleground from their perspective. But you did not have to be some sort of genius to recognise that the story must have had another side. I quoted this a few posts earlier but it is worth repeating in this context.

quote:
Elaine Pagels, (who LM mentions), is by no means an orthodox (or Orthodox) Christian but in her commentary on these times and the Irenaeus critique (in her book "Beyond Belief") she makes the following observation.

"..we can see that Irenaeus' characterization, however hostile, is right. Those who wrote and treasured innovative works ... were implicitly criticising, intentionally or not, the faith of most believers". (Chapter 4)

My reading of Pagels is that she thinks the history of Christianity might have been different if some of the strands of belief in Gnosticism had been incorporated mainstream. She does not swallow the Gnostic world view hook line and sinker; in fact she is very critical of some of its wilder and more negative aspects. She would have preferred a different blend to have arisen, rather than the one (which we now describe as orthodox) which did. As an opinion, based on the historical analysis, it's a very reasonable one. But it is not the one I hold and it is by no means the only one available.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Some of the questions I have:

Are the 4 gospels in the canon the only ones whose messages are God-breathed?

Is it possible that other Gospels may contain messages transmitted through the Holy Spirit?

Who gets to determine what is "inspired"?

Not all the messages in the 4 canon Gospels resonate with me as divinely inspired, but many of them do. Not all messages in the gnostic Gospels resonate with me as divinely inspired, but many of them do.

I agree with Elaine Pagels that Irenaeus did what he should have done: he picked the 4 Gospels that are most easily understood. That being said, they still contain messages that are by no means easy to understand.

I also agree that if the development of the early church had been left to the Gnotics, it would be a footnote in history, like the cults of Isis and Mithras. It placed way too much emphasis on the contribution of individual spiritual insight to be organized or cohesive.

I think it's great that in this present day, now that Christians are not under threat of extinction by mass execution by the Romans, and now that Gnostics are not under threat of extinction through Inquisitorial witchhunts, the dialogue between the two worldviews can be revived and safely undertaken by both sides.

I don't think either "brand" of Christianity has all the answers. I do think there's a vast Mystery that underpins and unites them both, and they both have their own ways of pointing the worshipper to that Mystery.

Each will continue to attract its own adherents, and there's not much that either can do to prevent that from happening.

FF

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

So far as I can see, Gnostics need a high degree of education to understand their texts and the context thereof, so I can hardly see how Gnosticism can be regarded as anti-intellectual, frankly, as some here appear to believe that it is.

However true or mistaken it is as a world, the accusation of being anti-intellectual makes little sense from what I know of it.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
wild speculation about our Lord based on second or third century heretical documents.

Um, how do we know that they are all written in the second or third century? We know that we have
copies of them from that time - but that is a whole different ball game.

I can't really see what, other than a mainstream "because-we-say-so" authourity agenda, makes these gospels less likely to contain truth than the canonical ones. Or less authorative.

I find the evolution of Judas from another disciple to evil incarnate to be a fascinating example of scape-goating, with all the incumbant consequences it has in this case.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I agree with Elaine Pagels that Irenaeus did what he should have done: he picked the 4 Gospels that are most easily understood. That being said, they still contain messages that are by no means easy to understand.

....and the reasons he gave for needing four gospels (four points on a compass etc) are utterly bogus.

.....and being easier to understand does not in any way or sense mean they are more likely to be true.

.....and although the Gnostic gospels contain many contraversial claims (and I am thinking here of the comments about women in the Gospel of Thomas, which were probably not part of the original anyway) it would seem rather silly to insist that these statements be taken literally or as read - esp given Gnostic attitudes to absolute truth claim and to mythology.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This time next year The Gospel of Judas will be in the bargain bin of a cheap bookshop near you. The Bible on the other hand will be selling hand over fist at exorbitant prices as per usual.

Which is the sort of complacent triumphalism that turns me off completely.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
....and the reasons he gave for needing four gospels (four points on a compass etc) are utterly bogus.

Which is the sort of complacent triumphalism that turns me off completely.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Fine.

Care to address the substance of the question now?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

What question would that be?

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Well, I thought you might care to hold forth on why we shouldn't question the canon. Perhaps I was wrong?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Question it all you want. Don't expect me to join you. I think that God was in charge of the canonisation process. Others disagree. Something of a non-starter.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Papio

The compass thing reads like rhetoric, not reason. A pictoral summary. Irenaeus's real concerns about the other gospels are explored in detail in his written work.

Why have some early Christian writings been given more credibility than others? It's a good question. It is also safe to say that it was a question which exercised the minds of the folks who sat on the councils which, eventually, decided the issue. I'm thinking about a separate thread on the subject. Not sure whether it should go on this new board, or in Kerygmania. Thinking also about a suitable OP. But there may be a fair number who would like to have their say on that topic. More, maybe, later.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Some of the non-canonical gospels are obvious rubbish. There is one about Jesus's childhood which contains the following story.

Jesus and his friends were playing. Jesus was a king, and all passersby, including the adults, were compelled to bow down to him. Then a funeral procession came by. Jesus ordered them to stop, and then he raised the dead person.

Whenever something remarkable happens, you hear many stories about the event. Some of these are factual, with minor mistakes; some are sheer nonsense; some are made up to prove some point.

I reject the gnostic interpretation because it conflicts with everything Jesus said about humility. If you can be saved only by having specific knowledge, this shuts out children, mentally deficient adults, and people who have to work so hard they don't have time to acquire the knowledge. When Jesus spoke about children, he said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven". No child is capable of understanding the gnostic teachings.

Moo

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by Barnabas62
The compass thing reads like rhetoric, not reason. A pictoral summary. Irenaeus's real concerns about the other gospels are explored in detail in his written work.

Ok, maybe I was off-base with that. I guess his conerns were that the Christians who were being murdered knew what they were giving up, and why.

quote:
More, maybe, later.

That would be interesting.

Moo:

quote:
Jesus and his friends were playing. Jesus was a king, and all passersby, including the adults, were compelled to bow down to him. Then a funeral procession came by. Jesus ordered them to stop, and then he raised the dead person.

Obvious rubbish? Why?

In the canonical gospels, Jesus is portrayed as a king, as a healer and miracle worker and as someone whom others should bow before. The Gnostic texts use myth and allegory, but then so do the canonicals. What appeals to me about the Gnostic texts is that we are not required to see the events they portray as historical in the sense that we would use.

quote:
Whenever something remarkable happens, you hear many stories about the event. Some of these are factual, with minor mistakes; some are sheer nonsense; some are made up to prove some point.

Surely there are examples of all of the above in the canonicals?

quote:
I reject the gnostic interpretation because it conflicts with everything Jesus said about humility. If you can be saved only by having specific knowledge, this shuts out children, mentally deficient adults, and people who have to work so hard they don't have time to acquire the knowledge. When Jesus spoke about children, he said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven". No child is capable of understanding the gnostic teachings.

But hell is given a very different spin, AFAIK, in the Gnostic texts. Rather than eternal damnation, those who aren't saved are rather reincarnated (in at least some versions) and given another chance. I know which I prefer, given the Christian stories of babies screaming in the fiery furnace.

Also, in at least one Gnostic text (the Gospel of Thomas?) Jesus says that those who are truly wise will not hesitate to ask little children about the meaning of life.

Further on the Gospel of Thomas and women - surely it is a legimate interpretation of the possible addition to the end of that Gospel to say that women were frowned upon in that society, and so what it means by making themselves like men is that they can rise above the prejudices against them with the nobility of spirit that is part of Gnostic teaching? Indeed, to rise above those men who are not chosen. They become male not by ceasing to be female, but by becoming the chosen.

Gnosticism also offers, for me, a more convincing theory of the origin of evil than I have ever read in mainstream Christianity and more hope in that it is surely ultimately universalist?

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

There's knowledge as an intellectual conceit, and there's knowledge as understanding, and a deep acquaintance with, a truth that is hidden.

I think a good example of the type of knowledge that gnosis represents is in the movie "Crash". The young inexperienced police officer condemns his partner as a racist and asks for a different assignment. The racist partner tells the younger man "You think you know yourself. Wait until you've been doing this for a while."

Later in the movie, the off-duty young officer impulsively commits a racially inspired murder. Only through the commitment of the deed does he finally understand that his violent judgment agaisnt racism was denial, and a projection of his very own deeply hidden racism.

This is gnosis. It's not arrogant. It's humbling, harsh and lethal to the ego. Without it, there's no hope of repentance. There is no hope for redemption.

It's fine to mouth the words "I'm a sinner" but if one has no deep feeling of how one allows sin to operate in one's life, how can one wholly repent?

FF

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0