According to the Gospel of Judas, Jesus takes Judas away from the rest of the disciples to tell him the secret mysteries. Jesus tells Judas that someone will replace him so the disciples can “come to completion with their god”
Note the recurring themes of “secret mysteries” and “their god.” The god of Jesus in the Gospel of Judas is not the Jewish God of the disciples or the Christian church.
The Gospel of Judas seems to contain several allusions to the New Testament. The reference to replacing Judas is apparently an allusion to the replacement of Judas recorded in the Book of Acts. Just a few lines later the Gospel of Judas makes reference to “generations of stars,” and “trees without fruit and “in shameful manner." Wandering stars, fruitless trees and shame are all concepts mentioned in the very short letter of Jude 12-13. Later in the text, the Gospel of Judas makes reference to Jesus’ parable of the sower from the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Judas also contains an allusion to First Corinthians 2:9. Matthew, Acts, First Corinthians and Jude are all, of course, in the New Testament.
Like so many Gnostic texts, the Gospel of Judas borrows ideas from the emerging core of the New Testament—The Gospels and Paul’s letters were recognized as sacred from as early as the late first century. The Christian leader, Irenaeus (AD 180) was so exasperated with these Gnostic groups—not because they rejected the New Testament, but because they pulled New Testament words and phrases out of context and twisted them to say things they couldn’t possibly have meant in their original contexts! This is exactly what we find in many of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts.
According to the Gospel of Judas, Jesus tells his disciples that they are the twelve priests in their dream and that the cattle they sacrifice are the men they lead astray. Jesus says others will come after them who kill children, sleep with men, and assure people that God has received their sacrifice from the priest.
The reference to sacrifices of priests is possibly a reference to the second century Christian priests and to the Eucharist. The derogatory reference to sleeping with men may possibly be an attack against the increasing avoidance of marriage by Christian priests. According to the Gospel of Judas, the bad guys in this story are the disciples of Jesus, and those who followed after them (i.e. church leaders). In fact, just a few lines later Judas reports a dream in which the disciples of Jesus were stoning and persecuting him. This is important. The Gospel of Judas portrays those who follow the teachings of Jesus as handed down through Jesus’ disciples, as the bad guys! Only Judas supposedly has the secret knowledge! To imagine that this comes from a Christian group (just because it talks about Jesus, Judas and the disciples) is absurd—ahh, but wait until Monday! That’s when the real absurdity begins!
Friday, April 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You write: "sleeping with men may possibly be an attack against the increasing avoidance of marriage by Christian priests."
So "sleeping with men"="avoidance of marriage"? Now I'm confused. Is this your new definition of homosexuality, "avoidance of marriage"? I thought your problem with gay people was that they wanted to get married.
You write: "The Gospel of Judas portrays those who follow the teachings of Jesus as handed down through Jesus’ disciples, as the bad guys!" And that would be the Catholic Church. Seems like anyone challenging the Catholic Church then would be inauthentic under this logic. When did you convert?
More seriously, you neglected to mention that the New Testament also references Gnostics. For example Paul in 1 Timothy 6:20 and several passages of John which may itself be a refutation of the Gospel of Thomas. So it went both ways.
From Comrade's Post:
"The Gospel of Judas portrays those who follow the teachings of Jesus as handed down through Jesus’ disciples, as the bad guys!" And that would be the Catholic Church.
This has nothing to do with the Catholic church. It has everything to do with the beliefs advocated by Jesus & the apostles which may or may not include the Catholic church. I'm not sure I follow you on this one.
Let me try to explain this to you. Of all the many denominations of Christianity that exist in the world tofay, the one that can most directly trace its origins back to the disciples of Jesus would be the Roman Catholic Church. Supposedly it can be traced back to St. Peter, the "rock" that the church was built on. Protestantism didn't exist until the Reformation. By Dennis' logic, since he implies that these "church leaders" who "followed after" Jesus are somehow more authentic than those who rejected these "leaders," then what he is really talking about is the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, you have already implied that Catholics are not really Christians since they believe in Works and Grace over faith. Hence my confusion over who you would all consider to be "real" Christians, a question that no one has directly answered.
I don't think either the Gospel of Judas or Dennis in his post were talking about the Catholic Church (please correct me if I'm wrong Dennis). The Catholic Church claims all sorts of things and is of course an old and a revered institution throughout the world. That does not make them exclusively the followers of the disciples teaching in any way. In fact, they are easily recognized and their history is easily traceable due to their political stranglehold on the Holy Roman Empire, not because they exemplified Jesus and the disciples teaching or can be traced directly to Peter. Well before the Catholic church, the followers of Jesus (and the disciple teachings) were being hunted down, tortured, and killed. During the Holy Roman Empire's reign there were Protestants but there were others who had never accepted the Catholic Church's teaching and thus were not protesting anything. The Catholic Church's empire (largely political, largely nominal) by no means lays exclusive claim to historical christianity. . . it's just the most visible structure to point to.
I have not implied anything. I have CLEARLY STATED that belief is what matters, NOT denomination. According to what the Bible says, salvation is by trusting in Jesus payment to God for my sin. Works are a mere reflection of this trust.
Let me be clear -- anyone who trusts that Jesus payed their sin debt to God is a Christian. Interstingly one of the clearest testimonies of this I have ever read was Bono of U2 in an interview (I'll have to see if I can find it). He gave a clearer presentation of the Gospel than most Baptist preachers I've ever heard and he's certainly not considered a poster-child of christianity. God is the judge of this for only he can see beyond the outer looks to the heart of man. Only He knows what we really believe. It's not my job to tell you that this person is saved and this one isn't. I merely try to allow the Spirit of Christ to be seen in MY life.
It appears that the term "Christian" to you, Comrade, refers to any religion, political system, or person that claims Christ as a key figure in their beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are. Is this accurate?
You write: "there were others who had never accepted the Catholic Church's teaching"
Yes, they were all those heretics that you and Dennis were denouncing in previous posts.
You write: "It appears that the term "Christian" to you, Comrade, refers to any religion, political system, or person that claims Christ as a key figure in their beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are."
Frankly, I don't know what a Christian is. If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ I would have to say most denominations that claim to be Christian and most people who claim to be Christian don't seem to be following Christ's words at all. Since so few people seem to actually be following his teaching I would probably say for the sake of convenience, refer to people as Christians if they see themselves as Christians. I was more interested in who you consider to be a Christian since you claim to be one and seem to be saying most other people who claim to be Christian are not. But I detect a reluctance to say flat out that anyone who does not follow your particular brand of Christianity is not really a Christian in your mind although it appears you believe that.
nice try Comrade but no, I wasn't referring to the Gnostics. Do you really believe that every "Christian" in the world was a Catholic or a protesting Catholic? I don't think so.
I appreciate your honesty about not knowing what a Christian is. You know what I think a Christian is. I agree that there are many (maybe most) that claim to be followers of Jesus who don't live it. 2 reasons: one is that they aren't followers of Jesus, the other is that sin continues to plague followers of Jesus in this life. Again though, it is not because people claim to be Christians that makes them Christians, it is what they believe about Christ that does (regardless of whether they are living as Jesus would have them too).
I'm not sure what you want me to say or think I am reluctant to say. I have been clear -- if people trust in Jesus payment for their sins they're saved. If not, they aren't. As much as we disagree on things Comrade, if you believe that you can't please God on your own and are trusting in Jesus payment on your behalf then you are a Christian. If not, you're not. If someone says that they don't believe that then I assume they aren't a Christian. It's very simple and very clear. I am not reluctant to say so. But unlike you, I don't completely trust my own brain. I trust God to know what people really believe. I can be fooled, God isn't.
In reference to sleeping with men and the avoidance of marriage... Dennis' point is that the insult made by the author of the Gospel of Judas may have been directed at a growing practice by Christian priests to not marry... it's silly for me to even articulate this point because it's quite obvious from reading Dennis' original post. Read more carefully... I think your tougher questions and better points are lost in the type of misdirection.
On to the "bad guys". The point that is made here, and that has been made several times over the past few days on this blog, is that the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic gospels frequently are in direct opposition to the worldview in illustrated in the New Testament. In this case the Gospel of Judas denounces all of the other disciples and presents a series of ideas that are in conflict with the Bible. To call that "Christian" is misleading... the belief systems are in direct conflict, and the Gospel of Judas is refuting or ignoring the teachings of the gospels that make them "Christian". In your reference to the Catholic church... the Protestants didn't abandon the New Testament or make claims that Jesus' disciples themselves were evil or misinformed. Both the Catholic church and the Protestant church hold to the same basic texts and worldview, although they do differ on many issues... their basic tenants or similar. The Gospel of Judas and the New Testament are in direct opposition and you don't even have to read deep into the texts to see that.
Comrade, I'm interested to know your take on the historical accuracy of the New Testament compared to the Gnostic writings. Do you believe that the New Testament accurately records the teachings of Jesus'? Do you believe that the Gnostic writings are more or less accurate in recording the teachings of Jesus? What's your take on Jesus'?
I pretty much agree with Kevin and Slimmons, but I think I need to clarify myself for Comrade:
Comrade wrote: “So "sleeping with men"="avoidance of marriage"? Now I'm confused. Is this your new definition of homosexuality, "avoidance of marriage"?"
I probably should have italicized and underlined the word "possibly" when I wrote that “sleeping with men bay possibly be an attack..." The Gospel of Judas clearly considers "sleeping with men" to be seriously sinful and they probably attribute that sin to early church leaders out of spite. For example, enemies of the early church sometimes charged them with cannibalism, probably because they had heard stories about church groups in which Christians "eat my flesh and drink my blood" (based on John 6 in which Jesus very graphically and provocatively describes the essence of faith). Likewise, my guess is that enemies of the church see church leaders who are increasingly avoiding marriage, so they maliciously jump to the conclusion that they must be homosexual. This is absurd, of course, but when people are filled with hate they will often say anything just to score points. On the other hand, the Gospel of Judas is brand new to us so we’re breaking new ground here. I’m certainly open to other suggestions.
Comrade wrote: "The Gospel of Judas portrays those who follow the teachings of Jesus as handed down through Jesus’ disciples, as the bad guys!" And that would be the Catholic Church. Seems like anyone challenging the Catholic Church then would be inauthentic under this logic. When did you convert?”
Contrary to those who want so desperately to revise the history of the Christian church, there was only one church in the first and second centuries, the “catholic”—small c—
which means “universal” church. This is the church that these Gnostic groups rejected. In AD 180 Irenaeus, for example, writes about the one universal (catholic) church throughout the world.
Revisionists will argue that the winners write history but Irenaeus was not a historian and he was not intending to write history. He was defending the one universal church—which he claimed could trace their doctrine back to disciples of the apostles, to the apostles, and ultimately, to Jesus himself—-he was defending this universal church from attacks by these numerous Gnostic groups which were ripping passages from the Gospels and Paul’s letters out of context and twisting them to support their bizarre teachings about archons, aeons, gods, and goddesses. Here’s what Irenaeus writes (this is a lengthy quote):
“Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, which they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophet, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinion. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artists out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should re-arrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed…In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions” (Irenaeus. “Against Heresies” I. 8. 1).
It is important to note that not only was Irenaeus not a historian, and not intending to write history, but at the time he was not even on the winning side in his city where Christians were being slaughtered!
Comrade wrote: “More seriously, you neglected to mention that the New Testament also references Gnostics. For example Paul in 1 Timothy 6:20 and several passages of John which may itself be a refutation of the Gospel of Thomas. So it went both ways.”
First, I’m surprised that you attribute First Timothy to Paul—that’s something only us conservative evangelicals believe. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet
:-)
Second, I wouldn’t deny that infant forms of Gnosticism could have been emerging even as early as the 60’s when Paul wrote First Timothy, though the passage you cite from First Timothy is hardly rock solid evidence. Much better evidence, though 30 years later, comes from First John. When the writer of First John 1:1-3 says that “we” declare to you that which we have seen, heard, touched, handled—-he seems to be directly reacting to emerging Gnostics who were arguing that Jesus only "appeared" to be human. John even says that these people who deny that Jesus has come in the flesh are of the antichrist (First John 4:3)! Furthermore, the writer indicates that these people have actually come out of John’s churches (First John 2:18-19). This would explain why many of these Gnostic writings, like the Gospel of Thomas, are so familiar with Christian teaching. About two-thirds of the Gospel of Thomas contains direct parallels or indirect allusions to the biblical Gospels. All of this to say, Comrade, that I actually agree with you that infant forms of Gnosticism may have been emerging as early as Paul’s later years.
But while I agree with you that John is refuting some emergent Gnostic group, I’m convinced that he was not specifically arguing against the Gospel of Thomas. First, I’ve analyzed the arguments of Stephen Patterson (one of the foremost proponents of an early date for Thomas) and I’m convinced that his arguments are filled with logical fallacies.
Second, virtually all scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas originated in Syria. In “Thomas and Tatian” (2002), Nicholas Perrin argued very persuasively that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Syriac and was dependent on Tatian’s Diatessaron (written ca. AD 175). Perrin demonstrated that when the Gospel of Thomas is translated back into Syriac, it contains 502 catchwords (catchwords are common words that appear to link two passages together thematically). In fact, when translated back into Syriac, Perrin finds only three places in the entire Gospel of Thomas in which he could find no catchword connection. Perrin argued that “The catchwords in GT are so frequent, so compactly arranged, and their interrelationship is so intricate, that it is virtually inconceivable that a compiler, drawing upon diverse oral traditions, conjured these connections on the basis of memory.”
Perrin compares passages in Thomas with what can be known about the Diatessaron and finds that there are at least eight places in which “Thomas follows the order of both the canonical gospels and Tatian’s harmony, and in one place the author follows the order of the Diatessaron alone. In fact, he finds that Thomas 45 “harmonizes Matthew and Luke in precisely the same manner as Tatian (Tatian’s composition was, after all, a gospel harmony)….” For these and other reasons, Perrin concludes that Thomas was literarily dependent on the Diatessaron.
This, of course would date the Gospel of Thomas some time after AD 175 which means that while John was certainly reacting to some group of emergent Gnostics, he was probably not reacting specifically to the Gospel of Thomas.
Alas, Kevin, sometimes humor is lost on you. My joke about "sleeping with men" equaling "avoidance of marriage" was my tweaking Dennis for avoiding the obvious himself. He just couldn't bring himself to say that these church leaders were being "accused" of homosexuality because like many revisionist histories of the early church he doesn't want to acknowledge it existed and in fact was more common than we are lead to believe now. In fact, homosexual relationships among priests and monks as well as lay people were as common then as they were today and those relationships were actually tolerated by the Church to a large extent until the 12th century. So it wasn't an idle "accusation" of "people filled with hate."
The "one universal church" that Dennis refers to evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, which for some reason he wants to avoid saying. Martin Luther believed that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and did not represent the accurate expression of Christ's teachings. So my point is when Dennis speaks of "church leaders" who are somehow reflecting Christ's teachings more accurately and dismissing the heretics, it makes one wonder why it was OK for Martin Luther to break with the in the 16th cenutry but not OK for people to disagree with the church in the first or second centuries. He is himself engaging in a bit of revisionist history to justify the Reformation while at the same time condemning early church "heresies."
As far as which came first John or Thomas, this is indeed controversial as Dennis points out. However, one theory he doesn't mention (which I have mentioned before) is that Thomas and the canonical gospels are actually all based on the same source sometimes called Q for Quelle (the German word for source). Many (if not most) Biblical scholars believe that Q, written closer to the time Jesus lived, would be more accurate than the gospels or Thomas and if Thomas is indeed based on Q then there might be some things in Thomas that are as authentic as anything in the gospels. If Q did exist, it has yet to be found.
So back to your question Kevin, I believe it is possible that there are elements of the gnostic gospels and of the canonical gospels that accurately reflect Jesus' sayings and deed, but I believe BOTH the canonical and non-canonical writings have been corrupted and contain inaccuracies, just as many historical accounts and even newspaper reports of more contemporary events contain many inaccuracies. I know that many Christians believe that everything in the Bible is completely accurate just as many believe everything on Fox News is completely accurate. I know some Christians believe that the Bible was directly inspired by God, which negates the human fallibility of its human authors, and there may even be some people who believe Fox News is inspired by God, too, but I must say I have my doubts. (By the way, the last Fox News bit was another example of "humor" in case you get the wrong idea.) So I believe that if we are to understand who the historical Jesus is and what he did we cannot rely solely on the "Church-approved" texts but on all texts available to us and then do the best we can to weigh what evidence we have.
Comrade... yeah apparently I don't get your "humor". Do you also believe that early Christians were canabals because they were accused of that... and Jesus was filled with evil spirits because people claimed that as well? You're assuming that a attacking claim of homosexuality is immediately accurate. Do you also support the idea that killing children (the other claim made in the Gospel of Judas) was common in the early church? Which century did the strong bishops decide that that behavior needed to stop? Also, you make big sweeping claims about the acceptability and prevolance of homosexual behavior in the church... can you cite your sources?
Do you honestly believe that Martin Luther's issues w/ the church and the early heretics are equal and can be lumped together? I've got a hard time believing that you can equate the two... one set being 2nd to 4th centuries and another set in the 16th centuries from the event and the vast differences in the structure and political impact of the church? I'm assuming you must because you ding Dennis for believing there may just be significant difference between the two... and that's without even juding the merits of each argument.
Q. Q is a hypothetical document. That is fact. There is no copy. To my knowledge there is no direct reference to Q in the gospels or other documents. Of course people like to "reconstruct" Q by taking a set of premises and dismembering the gospels and other texts in order to find Q... a document that now remarkably reflects their initial premises. Q is also convenient because now "scholars" can argue that having 4 texts, the gospels, saying the same thing isn't multiple attestation... of course it's all just Q. Q was hyopothesized 20 centuries after the events occured. Now I'm not saying that Q doesn't exist... I don't know enough about the specific details to make that claim definitively... but I'm not going to just blindly accept this theory with all of the obvious detractions.
I guess, as you noted, that your reference to Fox News is humor. Of course, with most humor there's also a point. Your point seems to be that anyone who believes the Bible is accurate and inspired by God is as stupid as someone who believes that Fox News is inspired by God. Maybe I misunderstood the analogy... or don't understand the rules of humor.
You say "church-approved" another little dig, and again pushing the idea that there is absolutely no reason to believe the Bible other than some random people arbitrarily approved them. Just don't want anybody to miss your subtle points.
So the last question I asked was what's your understanding of Jesus? Did he exist? Is He divine? Is he just a good teacher? You don't care or know yet? I'll show my cards... I think you don't have a clue and whatever you say will be a reflection of your own personal assumptions... or you just don't care.
Post a Comment