The Gospel of Judas
Many in the media are puzzled why the discovery of 'The Gospel of Judas,' in which Jesus is supposed to have instructed Judas to betray Him, has not caused a greater stir among theologians and Christian leaders. The answer is pretty simple - for the same reason genuine historians don't get themselves in a twitter every time Oliver Stone makes a new movie. There were quite a few writings about Christ's life floating around in the early centuries after His death. It was the early Church which determined which were canonical and which, apocryphal.
Most who get excited about these things know little about church history and theology and are simply hoping to discredit Christianity. Books such as the popular 'DaVinci Code' prey on such widespread ignorance. (I actually speak regularly with several priests of Opus Dei, myself. To my disappointment, they are not the least bit interested in world domination; just prayer and penance and that such like that. While I am quite fond of them, when it comes to world domination I am left to my own devices). But what these enthusiasts for discrediting Christianity fail to address is that if it was all a conspiracy, it was the most miraculously executed conspiracy in history: none of the conspirators ever broke and gave up the game - and many went to their deaths rather than deny the truth of Christ.
Still, I am glad this subject has arisen. When I was younger I spent a lot of time reading the Bible and trying to see things through what I called "fresh eyes." Much commentary I heard on the matter did not satisfy me at all. The idea of Judas as a malicious, greedy betrayer did not ring true to what I read in the Gospels. If Judas was the one-dimensional villain commentators protrayed him as, why did he react so violently and suicidally when Christ was taken, condemned and executed? What did Judas expect? And there is the clue to something more subtle and complicated. What if one assumes that what happened was not what Judas expected? Then the question becomes key.
Most pious Jews in Christ's time expected the messiah to usher in a resurgence of the temporal Davidic Kingdom. Even John the Baptist, who recognized Christ as messiah the moment He came to be baptized in the Jordan, was surprised. In his last days in prison, John sent word asking Jesus if He was the one they sought, or was it another. Two things were going on: first, Jesus' ministry was clearly not what John had expected. Second, John was suffering what I suspect every genuine prophet has wrestled with at some time; was his own work all a fraud and a delusion, or did his life have meaning?
If even John was expecting the re-establishment of a temporal kingdom, let us start with the assumption that Judas did, too. Say that Judas truly believes Jesus is the messiah. He has been traipsing around with Him for three years...a lot of good things going on, but when do we get this show of re-establishing the kingdom going? I think Judas just lost patience. His betrayal was motivated neither by greed nor a loss of faith. If, as with most contemporary Jews, he expected the messiah to re-establish a temporal kingdom - and if he believed Jesus to truly be the messiah, than what Judas was doing was trying to force the messiah's hand. And if what he expected was that, once that was accomplished, Jesus would publicly reveal Himself as messiah and conquer all oppressors and opponents, then Judas' reaction to the actual series of events that followed the betrayal make sense. It was only after the betrayal that Judas lost faith - and came to believe he had betrayed a decent, but helpless, man who was not the messiah.
That interpretation matches up with ALL the details we have from the Gospels about Judas. What, then, are the consequences if my interpretation is accurate? First, Judas' primary sins were neither greed nor malice. Rather, his first sin was to attempt to supplant the will of God with his own will. His second was to despair after seeing the consequences of his first error. Contrast that with Peter's sin of denying Christ at the critical moment. Judas' sin was born of arrogance, which gave way to despair. Peter's sin was born of weakness (fear), which gave way to a humble re-dedication. This suggests to me that the sins of arrogance are more dangerous than those of weakness (because they are not as easily repented of). It also suggests that despair is merely a perverse form of pride, another genuinely deadly sin.
There is a reason why the Bible is the best-selling book in the history of the world, and why many of the greatest geniuses in history have formed themselves on it. Read it with "fresh eyes" and you'll see why.
Happy Easter!
14 comments:
Actually, there are good scholarly reasons to be excited about this discovery. This codex can shed light on what certain early Christans believed and why they believed it.
As far as the classical story: this never made much sense to me. If Jesus as the sensation that the standard gospels said that he was, did he really need someone to identify him? Those stories make no sense.
I don't think there was some "world domination" conspiracy when these things were written; at the time Christianity was some minor spin-off from Judaism with little or no power. To me, it was probably more like the "gord vs. sandal" controversy as depicted in "Life of Brian".
As far as "discrediting Christianity": nah. People can believe in whatever superstition that they want to believe in, so long as those superstitions are not forced on me.
There is a reason why the Bible is the best-selling book in the history of the world, and why many of the greatest geniuses in history have formed themselves on it.
Yes, it was because during European colonization of the world from the 15th through 20th centuries most indigenous (as in non-Christian) religions were suppressed with a 'God-given' zeal. Local populations often were left with no choice but to convert thereby resulting in significant populations of Christians in those areas (see Central and South Americas as well as Sub-Saharan Africa). I guess the end does justify the means.
Sound as if Judas suffered from the desire of power corrupting.
Whenever you discover a lost text this old, it's exciting.
Also, Da Vinci Code is A NOVEL! I really don't see why people are getting in a kerfluffle over it.
But can we please limit ourselves to posts that at least try to remotely have something to do with Illinois?
Ah, Choko, this is only the second time I've posted something not directly tied to Illinois politics. It's timely and in the news, so deal with the rare exception.
As for you, Gish, thank you for providing an example of the very ignorance with attitude I decried in the post. There was something to complain about in the initial encounter between Europeans and Indians, but it is not what you cite. The problem was that many missionaries enslaved the Indians. The problem was serious enough that the pope issued a bull of automatic excommunication of anyone who enslaved an American Indian. The missionaries' efforts at evangelization were an utter failure, which is rather surprising given that even enslavement was preferable than the continuing mass ritual slaughters demanded by Aztec worship.
Mass conversion finally happened over a period of about 15 years - and it was due to the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe that St. Juan Diego brought after several encounters with an apparition of Mary. Some 9 million Indians converted because of this; not because of the missionaries.
Finally, if some of you masters of nuance bothered to actually study world history in any depth instead of just trying to get by faking it, you would discover that no genuinely informed person is surprised to find that Christians were not exempt from the savage ways of the ages they lived in. What is startling is that Christianity has almost always been the driving force in ameliorating the savagery of the each age.
Even today, the pseudo-intellectuals reflexively mock Christianity while calling Islam a religion of peace. Strange...quite an uproar over the supposed flushing of a Koran in Guantanamo while no one seems terribly upset that the 'moderate' imams of Afghanistan have ordered the murder of a man whose crime was to convert to Christianity.
Islam and Christianity are both religions of peace. They have been corrupted by many though. Islam's problem is that it hasn't in many places caught up with Enlightenment thought. So many many people were killed in the name of Christianity, such as under the Crusades and the Inquisition (which executed people who converted away from Christianity). The problem isn't Islam, it's that many followers of Islam haven't been immersed in modern thought in a liberal democracy, as most Christians have. Muslims in nations were the influence of modern thought and liberal democracy has been strongest (e.g. Turkey, India, Malaysia) are no less peaceful than Christians in similar situations.
You speak well, Thinkoman. I suspect most Christians - and even more Muslims - would be surprised to learn of the peculiar comraderie that grew between Richard the Lion-Heart and Saladin during the Crusades. After the finish of those, though, Christianity veered in one direction while Islam veered in another entirely. Certainly the enlightenment had a role, but I don't think that entirely explains it. The fascinating thing to me is that, put in the context of its age, the Islam of the Crusade era was substantially more tolerant than the modern version.
Certainly, a singular difference in the two is that in Christianity, there have always been scholarly voices that have moved the Church in more tolerant directions. There is a fascinating dynamic tension in Christianity - the voices of tradition anchoring the Church to the deposit of faith and winnowing out mere sensationalists, while serious, significant dissidents deepen the understanding of the deposit of faith. There is no lack of scholarship in Islam, but their voices tend to be drowned out. What would be necessary to get a vigorous and effective voice of Islam calling for tolerance?
In truth, the last few years I have not been nearly as dismayed by radical Islam (they are simply enemies to be defeated) as I have been by the flaccid and ineffective efforts of moderate Islam to recapture their faith.
Charlie-
Please. It sounds as if you are so enamored of your faith that you refuse to see the faults that its temporal manifestation has caused.
I studied World History but thanks for your subtle insult. I suggest you take a look at the Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages through the Age of Exploration. There was a reason there was a spring of groups decrying the corruption of that churches rulers. (Luther, Hus, etc.)
Faith is often corrupted by its temporal custodians. The sad thing is when some of the faithful choose to whitewash their history when it suits them.
P.S. I enjoyed your attempt to ameliorate the actions taken by the Spanish and Portuguese in Central and South America. Perhaps you can share the 'divine actions' that converted conquered peoples in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Based on his call for helping the sick and the poor, Jesus was the first RINO...how can conservatives support him?
No, RINO's help the rich and powerful, don't worry so do Dems and most establishment politicos
But no helping sick and poor
only the rich
and don't think hurting the poor with the Stroger hospital is helping them and the right thing to do, but many think that Stroger is being crucified
No, RINO's help the rich and powerful, don't worry so do Dems and most establishment politicos
But no helping sick and poor
only the rich
and don't think hurting the poor with the Stroger hospital is helping them and the right thing to do, but many think that Stroger is being crucified
Charlie Johnston and Opus Dei are in a plot to elect Senator Meeks and make all African Americans Catholic and to put women in black alleys with coat hangers to have abortions and force gay people to immigrate to Canada.
Well, I never thought to read the bible, but if Charlie tells me I should, then far be it for me not to heed such wonderful advice.
I may disagree with Charlie but it does certainly appear that he is try to be very genuine here. Having watched a close friend become born again, people may miss out on the genuine desire Christians have to share their faith with others. It shouldn't be misconstrued as anything other than being genuinely excited about sharing something they believe to be wonderful.
If you have an issue with him as a person then leave it be. The snide comments do little to help further any sort of discussion.
Post a Comment