"Gospel" of Judas? Naaahhh
A "Gospel" -- literally "Good Tidings" in Anglo-Saxon, an excellent translation of the Greek "Evangelion" -- is a story of Salvation, realized in the historical person Jesus Christ. The four Canonical Gospels tell the story of Jesus' teachings, His suffering, His death, and His Resurrection.
There are Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first Church Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, tells how these four, as well as the other books of the New Testament, were chosen by the Church to tell the story of the Faith. The criteria were very much what we would use today in Textual Criticism: 1) Dates of Citations -- who quoted from this work and when? 2) How widespread? I.e. how many copies of this work can we find, and how many individual churches use(d) it? 3) Does it teach what the Apostles taught? I.e. does it teach the same Faith we have received via oral Traditon from Apostolic times?
Various Apocryphal "Gospels" exist -- some name themselves "Evangelion" -- some are so-named by academics wanting to eke a few papers or a Doctoral dissertation out of an early minority sect. Many of these were known to the Patristic Writers (100-400 A.D.), and a few previously lost examples have shown up recently.
The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" -- which does not name itself a Gospel -- is well described in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
As noted, it does not tell a story -- it is simply a collection of disconnected quotes. It seems to share a source with the Canonical Gospels -- something like the "Q" Document -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document -- one or more collections of "Sayings of the Master", probably organized by subject.
The "Gospel" of Judas at least names itself as such, but still does not tell the story of Salvation we see in the Canonical Gospels. Like other Gnostic wiritings of the era, it is a "crib sheet", giving the inside scoop on how to get into heaven without going the long way around -- the ordinary Christian life of prayer and good works.
A "Gospel of Judas" was known to Irenaeus of Lyon, a mid-2nd Century crusader against Gnosticism, but whether the present document is the same as the one he condemned, we really do not know. What we do know is that it is equally Gnostic, and equally non-Christian.
The timing of its release is very PR-ish. Easter. The Christian High Holy Days, when the churches are telling the story of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord. What better time to send off rockets, and splash all over the front pages speculation about the historicity and veracity of the New Testament account?
As P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said (but didn't) -- "There's one born every minute." This whole "Judas" caper looks awfully Barnum-esque!
Those who don't really beleive anything, will happily believe almost any damn thing -- the more lurid and sensational the better.
There are Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first Church Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, tells how these four, as well as the other books of the New Testament, were chosen by the Church to tell the story of the Faith. The criteria were very much what we would use today in Textual Criticism: 1) Dates of Citations -- who quoted from this work and when? 2) How widespread? I.e. how many copies of this work can we find, and how many individual churches use(d) it? 3) Does it teach what the Apostles taught? I.e. does it teach the same Faith we have received via oral Traditon from Apostolic times?
Various Apocryphal "Gospels" exist -- some name themselves "Evangelion" -- some are so-named by academics wanting to eke a few papers or a Doctoral dissertation out of an early minority sect. Many of these were known to the Patristic Writers (100-400 A.D.), and a few previously lost examples have shown up recently.
The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" -- which does not name itself a Gospel -- is well described in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
As noted, it does not tell a story -- it is simply a collection of disconnected quotes. It seems to share a source with the Canonical Gospels -- something like the "Q" Document -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document -- one or more collections of "Sayings of the Master", probably organized by subject.
The "Gospel" of Judas at least names itself as such, but still does not tell the story of Salvation we see in the Canonical Gospels. Like other Gnostic wiritings of the era, it is a "crib sheet", giving the inside scoop on how to get into heaven without going the long way around -- the ordinary Christian life of prayer and good works.
A "Gospel of Judas" was known to Irenaeus of Lyon, a mid-2nd Century crusader against Gnosticism, but whether the present document is the same as the one he condemned, we really do not know. What we do know is that it is equally Gnostic, and equally non-Christian.
The timing of its release is very PR-ish. Easter. The Christian High Holy Days, when the churches are telling the story of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord. What better time to send off rockets, and splash all over the front pages speculation about the historicity and veracity of the New Testament account?
As P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said (but didn't) -- "There's one born every minute." This whole "Judas" caper looks awfully Barnum-esque!
Those who don't really beleive anything, will happily believe almost any damn thing -- the more lurid and sensational the better.
posted by Sam'l B. at
8:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home