Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

or maybe its becuase its historically significant, even if you dont like it…

I have no problem with the contemporary interest in the old Gnostic texts as an academic pursuit, but there is far too little being done to educate the public on the very real difference between these writings and those that ended up in the New Testament.  I often hear very well-read, highly intelligent people remark with great glee that yet another gospel has been found, and how exciting it is that we have all these new writings to compare to the biblical canon.  Lacking in all the hype is the reality that the canonical gospels are much, much older than these Gnostic texts, and that the Gnostic writings brought with them the agenda of a very specific sect that was developed well after the time of Jesus of Nazareth.  A contemporary analogy would be a future civilization finding, say, the Book of Mormon and claiming that it does much to enhance understanding of 21st Century Christianity.  While the Book of Mormon would certainly shed some light on a specific sect of American Christianity, its impact on present-day Christianity as a whole has been minimal. 

As such, the hype over the Gnostic texts is a perfect example of where the marketplace of ideas can be put to work.  And it’s up to those of us who fully understand the historical and theological underpinnings of these documents not to allow otherwise intelligent people to be taken in by a 3rd Century version of the DaVinci Code.

I think that all Scripture from all religions are stories, never intended by the original authors/editors to be taken as literally true.  If I’m right, then the importance of this document is to help understand the various stories, and the interplay between them, which created the theological underpinnings of the early Church.  Similarly, a reading of various texts left out of the Jewish Bible, the Book of Jubilees for example, also helps explain the philosophical beliefs of the early Christian gnostics and why they broke from Orthodox Judaism.

Joe

I would suggest that the timing with the Da Vinci Code release is accidental. The National Geographic show on this “gospel” is set for Palm Sunday. It is just another of the typical “scholarly” attacks on orthodox understandings of Christian scripture that occur just before Easter every year in many U.S. publications and broadcast media. Sometimes I wonder how the favorite talking heads used in such interviews, e.g., John Dominic Crossan (a favorite on NPR interview programs), keeps themselves busy the rest of the year, since they only seem to surface in the weeks right before Easter.

It’s not a “legitimate alternative to orthodox Christian theology?”

What, pray tell, constitutes “legitimacy” for you?  Adoption by the Catholic Church?

That’s “faith,” not “legitimacy.” Scams and cults are “illegitimate.” Whether or not you believe in a given article of faith is different from its “legitimacy,” and gnosticism is as “legitimate” as anything “peddled” by Catholics.  The gnostics don’t even ask for money or weigh in on politics.

Professor:
Yeah I’m impressed at the syncronized newsreports and breathless articles on TV. Even here in Canada, the Anglophone news stations mention the Judas gospel.
Anon:
The reason the gnostics don’t participate much is ‘cause they don’t exist anymore except as really isolated fringes or as individuals!

Damn...I beat the Professor to it!

Judas Agonistes

Heresy?  Seeing as the authors of this gospel had grandparents who lived in Jesus’ day, I’d say that their Christianity has a pretty good claim to being authentic—even if not officially Catholic.

Anon, orthodox christian theology is best summarised in the Nicene Creed. The fact that the early church had to negotiate and agree to a creed shows that there were many competing interpretations of the gospels. Every single phrase in the creed was argued over heavily before the final agreement was reached.

The reason why the Gospel of Judas is illegitimate is because the early church specifically disavowed and rejected it.

NG has lost their mind, their focus and ability to be science focused!  Subject matter does not matter. 

Seems they are nothing but another Green-Goofie mouthpiece. 

As for this particular subject, I think Dave covered it well.  Just another piece to the overall puzzel, and for sure not the only “witheld” piece either!

"Lacking in all the hype is the reality that the canonical gospels are much, much older than these Gnostic texts”

But I thought the various books of the new testament were dated from 50 to 150. This doesn’t sound “much much older” than a book condemned in 180 as heresy. Or are you referring to other gnostic works in general, not this Judas Gospel?

I spend a good part of yesterday reading Orthodox Jewish blogs and now this.
“Legitimate alternative to orthodox Christian theology?”
“Heresy?”

oy

Joe said:

If I’m right, then the importance of this document is to help understand the various stories, and the interplay between them, which created the theological underpinnings of the early Church.

And if you’re wrong?

Of course the Gospel of Judas is a legitimate alternative to orthodox Christian theology.  So was the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Thecla, the Apocalypse of Peter, and a whole raft of other books that lost the political struggle to get accepted as “orthodox” scripture.  For that matter, textual scholars have raised serious questions about apparent changes in the now-orthodox canon by transcribers who took sides in the theological battles between, say, the adoptionists and the docetists.
A newly-discovered gospel hewing to a line that lost a war concluded about 1600 years ago is unlikely to spark a new, alternative Christianity, but stranger things have happened.  And if this happens, it will be no less legitimately Christian than what did happen.

"I would suggest that the timing with the Da Vinci Code release is accidental. The National Geographic show on this “gospel” is set for Palm Sunday. It is just another of the typical “scholarly” attacks on orthodox understandings of Christian scripture that occur just before Easter every year in many U.S. publications and broadcast media.”

1.  This is, of course, a major historical find.  This Gospel was known about because we do have documents that mention it (in order to criticize it) but now we actually have the text of it (or at least a good verson of it). 

2.  Since this scholarship is about Christianity Palm Sunday is a good day to air a documentary on it just as Veterns day would be a good time to air a new documentary on WWII or some other major war the US has been in.  That hardly makes it an attack on Christianity.

3.  Finally as far as orthodox Christianity goes, the books that did not make the cut in the Bible were not all condemmed as false.  Many of them were felt to have been important but not inspired.  That means even in a flawed text there may in fact be some things that really happened, things that Jesus really said.  This makes it important for even orthodox Christians who have rejected gnosticism..

To use an analogy, it would be like the discovery of an Elvis recording that was thought long lost.  It wouldn’t change his biggest hits but serious Elvis fans would want to know about it.

Indeed, the Gospel of Judas was expressly condemned as heterodox by church father Saint Irenaeus of Lyons about 180 AD.

Well that settles it then.

Yet another mythical text to file alongside the rest of the unprovable supernaturalism. Fair enough.

If anyone’s confused on how exactly the ancient Church ended up with just the four canonical Gospels, PBS’s Frontline did an excellent series on the topic, “From Jesus to Christ.” (link is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/)

To sum up:

1.  All four of the Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) tell the complete story of Jesus’s ministry in a linear time format, from His baptism, to His works and deeds preaching the Good News, to His Passion and Crucifixion, ending with the Resurrection.  Any gospel that did not tell the full story (including not only Judas, but also Thomas and “Q” was left out of the canon).

2.  To quote one of the essays cited on the PBS site:  “The four gospels reflect diversity, yet they all share one key element: each tells the story of passion of Jesus, his suffering and his death. That story is intimately connected to the ritual that is the centerpiece of Christian worship, the celebration of the Eucharist, the Last Supper.”

3.  Each of the Gospels was written for, and perhaps by, a specific community to emphasize certain parts of Jesus ministry that were particularly important.  Matthew, for example, was written for the early Jewish Christian community, and spends a great deal of time emphasizing Jesus’ role as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies of the Messiah, and his fulfillment of the ancient law.  Luke, by contrast, was written for the community of Gentile (mostly Greek) Christians, and spends a great deal of time emphasizing the universality of Jesus’ message (a theme further developed in the “sequel” to Luke’s Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles).

4.  None of the canonical gospels reflect gnosticism, which was considered heretical by those who put the Gospel together.

In one essay there (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html), there is also a tantalizing suggestion that the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic scriptiures (even Judas) may have been influenced by Indian mystic thought.  Tradition has it that St. Thomas was sent to India to preach the Gospel there, that there were many trade routes opening up between the Roman Empire and the subcontinent, and that the flourishing of gnostic Christianity coincided with the establishment of this trade.  (While interesting, this certainly damages gnosticism’s claims of being a “truer” form of Christianity.)

Another reason for this intense interest is that the Gospels leave quite a bit out.  Like any fan, there is always an insatiable hunger to know more.  Any lost gospel opens up the possibility that it might add true historical information about Jesus.

Regarding Boonton’s comments on my earlier comment on the timing of the National Geographic Release:

1.  “This is, of course, a major historical find. This Gospel was known about because we do have documents that mention it (in order to criticize it) but now we actually have the text of it (or at least a good verson of it).”

The document in question was discovered about 30 years ago, and, according to the National Geographic, has been in the hands of scholars since 2000. Did they just conveniently finish their work this week?

2."Since this scholarship is about Christianity Palm Sunday is a good day to air a documentary on it just as Veterns day would be a good time to air a new documentary on WWII or some other major war the US has been in. That hardly makes it an attack on Christianity.”

In what way is the National Geographic program scholarship about Christianity? Even in the era of its production (i.e. second century), the Gospel of Judas was rejected by the Christian church as not representing authentic Christian teaching. If it tells us anything about Christianity, it tells us what early Christians did not believe. Hyping a non-Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus during Holy Week when that interpretation has been well known for centuries suggests, to my mind, motives other than scholarship. Using Holy Week as a peg for dissemination of gnostic gospels is, to use Boonton’s analogy, like using patriotic holidays to hype interpretations of U.S. history pushed by known enemies of the United States.

3. “Finally as far as orthodox Christianity goes, the books that did not make the cut in the Bible were not all condemmed as false. Many of them were felt to have been important but not inspired. That means even in a flawed text there may in fact be some things that really happened, things that Jesus really said. This makes it important for even orthodox Christians who have rejected gnosticism.”

From the Christian viewpoint, the Gospel of Judas is a clearly a flawed text. Does it preserve some authentic saying of Jesus? Who knows? Biblical scholars have been arguing about which texts in the canonical Gospels are authentic sayings. In the absence of a generally accepted means of identifying such sayings and separating them from the gnostic context, religious texts of another religion (i.e., gnosticism) don’t have much to say to Christians trying to understand their roots.

On the other hand, I would certainly welcome a broader public discussion of other early Christian texts, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Even though such works were ultimately judged not to be inspired scripture, they were extremely popular and widely quoted in the early Church. Some, like the gnostic Gospel of Judas, were only rediscovered in the modern era.

Precisely because the media does not prepare programs on such little known early Christian writings and does not use Christian holidays as a peg to attract an audience for such programs, I remain inclined to believe that the routine broadcasting of programs that offer alternative interpretations of Christ during Holy Week as ultimately anti-Christian in nature.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn, are interested Professor?

Stare decisis?

“The reason why the Gospel of Judas is illegitimate is because the early church specifically disavowed and rejected it.”

I’m with the Prof. on this one.  I noticed the same things from the newspaper accounts.  But here’s an even harder question for those who see the potential for a new orthodoxy in the Gospel of Judas: if this is, like the Gospels, an eyewitness account of Jesus, then where has it been for the last 16 or 18 centuries?  As far as I can tell, there is no historian standing behind this gospel as an authentic MS from the first century.  National Geographic is not a history journal.  Hence, all the newspaper quotes are from _theologians_ rather than biblical historians, for whom this is rather boring news indeed.

The gospels are an eyewitness account?  What bible study have _you_ been going to?

Wake me up, is this the year 2006 or the year 6

Clearly, the Illuminati and the National Geographic are in on this together.  Word on the street is that they’re behind the War on Christmas, too.

Hyping a non-Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus during Holy Week when that interpretation has been well known for centuries suggests, to my mind, motives other than scholarship.

Just wait until Sweeps Week.  We all know archaelogists will do anything for ratings, and I’m sure they’ve got something HUGE planned.

Seriously, where are you nutjobs from where archaelogists and the media sit around to conspire to ruin your Easter?

It looks like a cheap attempt to cash in on the Da Vinci Code phenomenon just as the movie is about to be released.

So, ya got a problem with capitalism, or do you just resort to ad hominems whenever all other arguments fail you?

Look, folks, this is an extraordinary archealogical find. 

For those who are secure in their faith, they’ll rejoice at the prospect of learning more about the beliefs of one of the early Christian traditions, no matter how much they disagree with it.

For those who aren’t secure in their faith, they’ll fill themselves with bile and find all sorts of reasons to complain.  They will find problems with the timing of publication no matter when it is published.  Such is the nature of mankind.

The document in question was discovered about 30 years ago, and, according to the National Geographic, has been in the hands of scholars since 2000. Did they just conveniently finish their work this week?

It would hardly be the first important document that sat around collecting dust unnoticed for a long time before someone realized what it was.  From the NY Times article it sounds like it passed between the hands of private collectors for those 30 years who were more interested in selling it than translating it.

But the work on the text is done and it seems to have been finished & considering how old and decayed the manuscript was it’s not surprising that it took 6 years to do it.

In what way is the National Geographic program scholarship about Christianity? Even in the era of its production (i.e. second century), the Gospel of Judas was rejected by the Christian church as not representing authentic Christian teaching. If it tells us anything about Christianity, it tells us what early Christians did not believe.

Only if you apply an ex post facto standard to Christianity.  Important early Christian figures who today would be considered Church fathers, before the Bible was finalized, relied on a host of texts...some of which never made the cut.  The word Christian implies a religion that has Christ as its focus.  While gnosticism went extinct there is no doubt that it was a Christian religion just as surfism is a Muslim one despite the fact that some of their core beliefs are considered borderline heresy by Sunni & Shi’ite Muslims.

Hyping a non-Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus during Holy Week when that interpretation has been well known for centuries suggests, to my mind, motives other than scholarship. Using Holy Week as a peg for dissemination of gnostic gospels is, to use Boonton’s analogy, like using patriotic holidays to hype interpretations of U.S. history pushed by known enemies of the United States.

Interest in the historical Christ obviously peeks during the Easter season.  It isn’t surprising that there is some overlap between those interested in Christ and those interested in Christian history (of which you cannot deny this was an important part).  Anyway the analogy that might work better is critics of Christmas (you know, ‘too commercial’ etc.) come out at Christmas time, which is a logical time to air their grievances.

“From the Christian viewpoint, the Gospel of Judas is a clearly a flawed text. Does it preserve some authentic saying of Jesus? Who knows? Biblical scholars have been arguing about which texts in the canonical Gospels are authentic sayings. In the absence of a generally accepted means of identifying such sayings and separating them from the gnostic context, religious texts of another religion (i.e., gnosticism) don’t have much to say to Christians trying to understand their roots.”

I agree that it is almost, if not impossible, to know what was fictional and what was true.  Nonetheless, I think many people find the topic fascinating.  Even if the document is entirely flawed the idea maybe some of it may actually be Judas’s ‘side’ is very interesting.  I can’t tell you whether or not it is good for Christians seeking religion but it is of interest to Christians interested in both their history and the history of the time.

“On the other hand, I would certainly welcome a broader public discussion of other early Christian texts, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Even though such works were ultimately judged not to be inspired scripture, they were extremely popular and widely quoted in the early Church. Some, like the gnostic Gospel of Judas, were only rediscovered in the modern era.”

True, dont you get the history channel?  There’s been quite a bit of activity around other ‘lost books’ of the Bible.  On the other hand whose really the biased one here?  Gnostic texts are interesting because they are very old and because they show a different type of Christian religion.  This makes them newsworthy because they are contraversial. 

“Precisely because the media does not prepare programs on such little known early Christian writings and does not use Christian holidays as a peg to attract an audience for such programs, I remain inclined to believe that the routine broadcasting of programs that offer alternative interpretations of Christ during Holy Week as ultimately anti-Christian in nature.”

Now I think you’re just getting silly.  For every ‘Gospel of Thomas’ History Channel program there has been at least two if not more going through the stories of the Bible.  This isn’t even touching the airing of the various Jesus movies.

Dispute, you make sense to me. This debate reveals how poorly we know our mythology.  Campbell is likely spinning in his grave.

The esteemed North Carolina professor’s definition of gnosticism is imprecise: one letter too many.  That letter is “a,” as in “a spirit.”

Thich Nhat Hahn’s great little book, _Living Buddha, Living Christ_ deals with this problem much better than I ever could.  But here goes anyway.

KNOCK-KNOCK!
(who’s there???)
JUDAS!
(judas who?)
KNOW!  JUDAS YOU!

KNOCK-KNOCK!
(who’s there???)
JESUS!
(jesus who?)
KNOW!  JESUS YOU!

KNOCK-KNOCK!
(who’s there???)
BUDDHA!
(buddha who?)
KNOW! BUDDHA YOU!

Fire has long been used in religious rituals; in this illustration (http://www.vrnirvananow.org/Baptism_By_Fire.html), the flashlight depicts the sacred fire. From the infinite earth, materials are gathered; the Many finite, temporal, profane things return to fuel the One infinite, eternal, divine fire. Smoke is the traditional conveyor of prayers; in this illustration, the light beam arises, becoming, with its human holder, the channel of peace that St. Francis sought, between the wheel of the earth and the wheel in the sky.

As with the fuel, fire, and smoke, so too with us.

In baptism by fire, the initiate is required to quit all claim to the former self; suffering is exactly the attempt to cling to the previous form; bliss is burning for all we’re worth, simply hoping that others might be enlightened, not harmed, by our immolation (This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine!).

In this spirit, Christ walked willingly to Calvary.  In this spirit, some Buddhists undergo willingly baptism by fire.

Metabolism is the process of burning fuel; each and every one of us is burning alive. And the same heat, the same light, the same divine fire burns within us All: We consume the fruit of the earth, arise in its burning, and return from whence we came, our (only apparent) death and dismemberment continuing the cycle by returning us into fuel for the divine fire; whence we arise, thence we return; so, everywhere I look, I know:

There _by_ the grace of God go I.

Cyclone Hits Remote Australian Coast

Thursday March 30, 2006 2:31 PM [GMT]
AP Photo NY114
PERTH, Australia (AP) - Australia’s remote northwest shore was lashed by 80 mph winds as Cyclone Glenda made landfall Thursday, officials said. There were no immediate reports of substantial damage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5721581,00.html

IN THE LYIN’ DEN WITH HELEN
Dedicated to Helen Thomas

When water melts into water
What is it that gets wet?

When, in the lyin’ den with Helen, a lion eats a lion
What is it that gets et?

When We, the People, in order to form a more
Perfect Union,
Express our power
What is it that stands up?

When a cyclone makes landfall in Oz
There’s no away to be blown to

You’re already there!

We were already the very source of the Ocean of Being
Before we thought we were a drop in need of dissolving.

You’re not “just” a drop.
You were
Before time was invented.
You are
Beyond time, names, and forms.
You will be
Present in this moment now for all eternity.

Atomizing us into umpteen different Newtonian cellves isn’t helping people escape their cellves by realizing

There is no self trapped in a cell to begin with.

“I am he as
You are me and
We are all together.
Googoogajoob!”

Science explicitly chose to conceive the atom as a point particle.  Psychology
adopted the atomic point as its model for the self.  Thus we find ourselves bricked into cellves of our own mistaken making.

Once you name something, it becomes a “thing.”
Where were you just prior to using words?

You’re aware right now of ineffables.
You are using words to package, label, and ship

Your ineffables into Others.

That’s where We come from.

See the space between the lines?

That’s where We Are.

Identifying with either the The Word or its contents
Unnecessarily limits us.  We are both and

We are neither.  We are the source of all things
Before they are named.

Identity with the source of the ocean of divinity is inescapable.  That’s what the Buddha and Jesus and Halaj, a 6th century AD Sufi mystic crucified for preaching this ultimate heresy:

Tat tvam asi, Thou are that.

THIS OLD GOD
(to the tune of “This Old Man")

This old God
He played man

He played man but then began
To harden, to stiffen . . .
He missed his sister so!

Let’s roll old god gently home
That’s a good god
Give that god a bone
Let’s roll old god gently home

This old god
He played dead

A crown of soulthorns upon his head
Hey god! Wake up! Enliven up in there
All you are suffering is your nightmare

That’s a good god, give that god a bone
Let’s roll old god
Gently home

This old god
Hurts so bad

He too often gets too mad
Hey god! Wake up! Enlighten up in there
All your suffering is our nightmare

That’s a good god, give that god a bone
Let’s roll Old God

Gently

Home

O BROTHER! MY BROTHER
[First voice: Isis speaks to her beloved Osiris; second voice: a caregiver speaks to a retired pilot; third voice: we all speak with one voice; fourth voice:  the nameless voice of, as the Upanishads say, that from which words turn back, having not obtained.]

My brother is my god
Yes, my brother is my husband, too

My brother is my pilot
For w h o m

I am ground crew.

My brother is my pater, he who
Rhymes with mater in water.

In sum, O Brother! my Brother! my Brother, He is
You!

O SISTER! MY SISTER
[First voice: Osiris speaks to his beloved Isis; second voice: Luke speaks to his commanding officer, Leia Skywalker; third voice: we all speak with one voice; fourth voice:  the nameless voice of, as the Upanishads say, that from which words turn back, having not obtained.]

My sister is my goddess
My sister is my wife

My sister is my Princess
For w h o m
I bear all
S T R I F E !

My sister is my mother
Beyond w h o m

There is no Other.

In sum, O Sister! my Sister! my Sister is my
L I F E !

dp

Heresy? That’s, like, so 18 centuries ago!

"And that the Gnostic writings brought with them the agenda of a very specific sect that was developed well after the time of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Well, to be fair, the same can be said of the cannonical Gospels. 

“if this is, like the Gospels, an eyewitness account of Jesus, then where has it been for the last 16 or 18 centuries?”

The vast majority of Biblical scholars do not believe the cannon Gospels to be eyewitness accounts either.  Indeed, they don’t really claim to be so themselves.  And the versions of them we read today have parts that were apparently added centuries later: such as the Trinity doctrine.  Or the last chapter of Mark.

From a Christian perspective, the Gnostics were heretics. This cannot be argued with. Obviously the Gnostics didn’t think they were heretics: rather, they believed that the early church had perverted the teachings of Jesus and that THEY, in fact, were his true followers.

These two positions cannot be reconciled. After all, the beliefs of the Gnostics and what we now call the early Christians were so dissimilar that they could not co-exist. It is NOT true that “the importance of this document is to help understand the various stories, and the interplay between them, which created the theological underpinnings of the early Church.” The truth is that this and all the other Gnostic gospels were written after the theological underpinnings of the early church were already extant, and they were pretty much a direct contradiction of those tenets. That’s why they were considered heresy, and that’s why the church, led by Bishop Irenaeus, went to such great lengths to wipe out those who believed in them. Early church leaders weren’t stupid: they knew that two opposed and competing visions of Jesus and spirituality had much less chance of survival, let alone attaining any kind of power, than one strong, unified church - i.e., the church built around Peter.

2000 years later, the Gospel of Judas is not the threat to the Catholic Church that it could have been back then, and it’s absurd to think it is in any way going to be a world-changing document. Thanks to the 1945 discovery at Nag Hammadi, we already have many other Gnostic gospels, and I’m pretty sure there haven’t been mass defections (pun intended) from Catholicism or any other Christian faith. The gospel IS, however, a fascinating historical document, and should be treated as such. Like the other Gnostic gospels, it gives us a glimpse into a religion that for the most part is long dead. And I, personally, think that’s pretty cool.

But then again, I’m Jewish, so what do I know… (;

National Geographic provides many praiseworthy services.  If they occasionally need to con the rubes to augment the bottom line, I can cope.

Can’t we all just get along?
Apparently, the answer is still “no.”
Be nice if we could at least ask questions without maleficent motives being adduced.
But if we’re not literally killing people for believing the “wrong” religion, I suppose that’s progress.  Oh, wait…

Early church leaders weren’t stupid: they knew that two opposed and competing visions of Jesus and spirituality had much less chance of survival

oy.

it’s more like they knew that competition diluted their own power and control over their followers, and decided to get rid of those meddling Gnostics once and for all.

National Geographic provides many praiseworthy services. If they occasionally need to con the rubes to augment the bottom line, I can cope.

they had a cover a few years ago with the screaming headilne “Was Darwin Wrong?”. open it up, flip to the lead article and you get your answer in gigantic bold letters: NO!.

tee hee.

Early church leaders weren’t stupid: they knew that two opposed and competing visions of Jesus and spirituality had much less chance of survival

oy.

it’s more like they knew that competition diluted their own power and control over their followers, and decided to get rid of those meddling Gnostics once and for all.

Good point. In fact, if you hadn’t cut off my sentence when you quoted it, you could’ve saved yourself the trouble of posting. Here’s the full sentence:

Early church leaders weren’t stupid: they knew that two opposed and competing visions of Jesus and spirituality had much less chance of survival, let alone attaining any kind of power, than one strong, unified church - i.e., the church built around Peter.

I actually prefer modern Gnostisism: The universe was created by a sub deity. His contact with the material world has corrupted him and driven him crazy. The purpose of mankind is to transend the imperfection of creation. The sub-God’s last gasp effort effort was to have Jesus tell people to take care of each other.

Neo-tribalists debating how many gospels can fit on the head of a pin.

In an age when competing religious philosophies measure success in body counts (still) this theological nitpicking seems designed to divert someone from having to address the real problems of our time. This is shameful; haven’t religions caused enough havoc?

A little more time spent on Jesus’ message - and a little less time on conflicting versions of a questionable history.  Which do you think He would have preferred?

Can you give me an example in which this concern for competing narratives might actually influence events occuring now?

If this concern for Christ’s story shows what supposedly “true” Christians feel is important - Jesus weeps.

Of course it’s Gnosticism. Elaine Pagels, the author of The Gnostic Gospels (and a consultant for National Geographic’s article on the Judas Gospel) has an Op-Ed article on the subject in today’s New York Times.

Don’t make a conspiracy out of the blindingly obvious.

Sharper writes: “In what way is the National Geographic program scholarship about Christianity? Even in the era of its production (i.e. second century), the Gospel of Judas was rejected by the Christian church as not representing authentic Christian teaching.”

Seems to me that the jury is still out on what is “authentic Christian teaching”. Luther had some issues with the Roman Catholic church rather more recently than the second century, after all.

As far as the “DaVinci Code” thing goes, I think that’s a stretch, when the show is clearly far more keyed into Palm Sunday and Easter.

If anyone’s offended by that link, they should probably be happy that cable TV hasn’t found a way to produce a show linking Jesus, Hitler, mummies, pyramids, custom choppers, interior design, and sharks.

I find this to be an increadilbly ill-informed post, especially for an academic blogger. It looks like the Professor needs to take a review course in history, particularly Church history. Talking about ancient heresy from a modern perspective is pure idiocy. The question should not be what is the view on the document from the perspective of the contemporary offspring of the religion in question. The perspective should be taken at the moment, contemporaneously with the document. Looking at it from the perspective of the winning faction is the mark of a true zealot.

The Evangelicals have taught me that Papists are heretics and will be going to hell.

Papists are like Gnostics!

The problem with monotheism in the first place is that the absolute isn’t one. It’s zero. So the spiritual absolute wouldn’t be an apex or point of reference from which we fell, but the essence out of which we rise. To the extent reality has form, it is a matter of balanced opposites, ie, yin/yang, matter/anti-matter, male/female, up/down, conservative/liberal, yes/no, good/bad, etc. When humanity was a tribe in the wilderness, leadership was simply a function of whomever was most effective. When we settled down and established a social order, those at the top had to justify their position. The two most effective ways to do this were; one: To present themselves as representatives of a higher order, rather then simply the highest point reached. Our current president still believes in this logic. Two: To focus on an enemy to define the us from the other. Osama bin Ladin and George Bush need each other.
The alternative is to understand the dualistic nature of reality. There are always two sides of the coin, even if we only can see one at a time. It is interesting we should have this seventeen hundred year old example of people trying to understand both sides of a situation when even today so many people are still being controlled by one track thinking and leaders playing on fear and claiming their own divinity.

Professor, why do you have to phrase your entry in a way that makes it seem like there is some conspiracy to bring this story forward instead of just debate what the story says?

There is no point in arguing the motivation of why the story came out unless you cant very well discuss/dispute what the story actually says.

Have any of us actually read this text? Has it been translated? Is it bunk because the church views it as such? How many people out there can understand this text? I would argue not very many.

In response to a variety of comments on my postings, I will note that I began by suggesting that Prof. Bainbridge was incorrect in associating the National Geographic’s release of this translation as an effort to play off of the forthcoming Da Vinci Code movie. Rather, I noted that over the years I have observed the regular airing of “alternative” interpretations of Christian doctrine in the weeks right before Easter. No one has posted any comments disputing the basic observation. Indeed, even my critics seem to freely suggest that Holy Week is an optimal time for such program because interest is allegedly high.

The real question is, whose interest is high? Probably not Christians who are firm in their faith, since during Holy Week they are focused on other matters than ancient theological disputes. Perhaps these programs are aired for the benefit of non-believers who are weak in their “faith” and need some positive reinforcement for their rejection of Christian teachings. Obviously, if orthodox Christian teaching merely represents the outcome of a power struggle among equally valid interpretations of Jesus, such teachings have no claim to alliegance from anyone. So programming that reinterates this view is comforting to the “faith” of non-believers who might backslide under the influence of Christians celebrating Easter.

I am not particularly surprised that it took six years for scholars to translate this manuscript. The point of my comment was the amazing coincidence that the six years concluded just in time for a broadcast of this program on Palm Sunday. Although I have no inside information, I suspect that this progam has been “in the can” for quite some time and could have been broadcast weeks, if not months, ago.

And, yes, although I have no television set, I am aware of various programs on the History Channel on the “lost books of the Bible.” However, I think you will have difficulty finding an example of the highlighted “lost books” being books produced by and for the Christian Church (e.g., the Didache or the Shepherd), rather than assorted gnostic writings. Moreover, I have certainly never seen articles on such Christian writings in my local paper (the Baltimore Sun), which yesterday gave front page play to the Gospel of Judas, and proclaimed in the headline “Gospel of Judas Rattles Beliefs: Newly translated, ancient documents challenge orthodox teaching on Jesus and his betrayer.” (Of course, nothing in the article actually documents any rattling of beliefs, but the Baltimore Sun can always hope!)

Is is possible to identify “authentic Christian teaching”? Well, the major media outlets seem, like the Baltimore Sun, to have no problem identifying it, since they never have problems finding people and sources to quote that attack it. Even the National Geographics web posting on the Gospel of Judas recognizes that this manuscript was “threatened by the hatred of the great majority of its contemporary readers, who saw it as a shame and a scandal.” Apparently early Christians, too, had no difficulty recognizing authentic Christian teachings.

As for questioning peoples’ motives, sensible people routinely examine the motives of the people they interact with. Not everyone’s motives are transparent. One commentator here even observed that it is fine by him that National Geographic “con the rubes.” I find it curious that those who criticize questioning the motives of the National Geographic in broadcasting its program during Holy Week offered no negative comments to this recommendation for subterfuge. Apparently it is OK for non-Christians to have secret motives, but it is not acceptable for Christians to discern such motives and point them out.

This recommendation for subterfuge brings us full circle to Prof. Bainbridge’s earlier posting on the liberal religous leader encouraging Democrats to at least create the appearance of believing abortion is not a good thing. If these are the rules that some people want to play by, they have no claim to sympathy when people question their motives.

Finally, as to the question whether “this concern for competing narratives might actually influence events occuring now,” I will note that Islam, too, offers a competing narrative of Jesus. Would contemporary American society be different if the Islamic Jesus narrative were accepted by broad segments of the population? I certainly think so. Similarly, it is fortunate for western civilization, that the Christian Church defended itself against gnostic teachings with its emphasis on the intrinsic evilness of the material world. Whether the European Union wants to acknowledge the debt its culture owes to Christian teaching or not, modern western society would be inconceivable without its foundation in orthodox Christian beliefs.

The real question is, whose interest is high? Probably not Christians who are firm in their faith, since during Holy Week they are focused on other matters than ancient theological disputes. Perhaps these programs are aired for the benefit of non-believers who are weak in their “faith” and need some positive reinforcement for their rejection of Christian teachings. Obviously, if orthodox Christian teaching merely represents the outcome of a power struggle among equally valid interpretations of Jesus, such teachings have no claim to alliegance from anyone. So programming that reinterates this view is comforting to the “faith” of non-believers who might backslide under the influence of Christians celebrating Easter.

Hmmmm, are the History Channel or Discovery Channels religious stations with a mission for Christian evangelicism?  If not then isn’t their duty as a business enterprise to put on programs that are interesting to their viewers?  Do non-Christian or unorthodox Christian viewers not count?  I notice no one has picked up on my point that for every ‘alternative theology’ program there is usually at least one or more traditional documentary aired around this time and others.  In fact, one person cited here a PBS documentary that explored the traditional Bible and why the for Gospels were choosen over all the other ones out there.

And, yes, although I have no television set, I am aware of various programs on the History Channel on the “lost books of the Bible.” However, I think you will have difficulty finding an example of the highlighted “lost books” being books produced by and for the Christian Church (e.g., the Didache or the Shepherd), rather than assorted gnostic writings. Moreover, I have certainly never seen articles on such Christian writings in my local paper (the Baltimore Sun), which yesterday gave front page play to the Gospel of Judas, and proclaimed in the headline “Gospel of Judas Rattles Beliefs: Newly translated, ancient documents challenge orthodox teaching on Jesus and his betrayer.” (Of course, nothing in the article actually documents any rattling of beliefs, but the Baltimore Sun can always hope!)

Needless to say in the world of Biblical celebrities Judas is a much bigger figure than Didache or the Shepherd.  Every article I’ve seen on the subject, though, features Christian thinkers asserting traditional orthodoxy as well as scholars who express doubt that the gospel was really written by Judas himself.  You can’t really blame the media for going with sexier headlines but I have not seen mainstream reporting of this that presents his gospel as material for a new orthodoxy.  In fact, there’s been a surprising lack of actual advocates for gnosticism being presented here...something that I think might borderline on bias since I know there must be at least a few.

As for questioning peoples’ motives, sensible people routinely examine the motives of the people they interact with. Not everyone’s motives are transparent. One commentator here even observed that it is fine by him that National Geographic “con the rubes.” I find it curious that those who criticize questioning the motives of the National Geographic in broadcasting its program during Holy Week offered no negative comments to this recommendation for subterfuge. Apparently it is OK for non-Christians to have secret motives, but it is not acceptable for Christians to discern such motives and point them out.

Of you are asserting that their motives are to profit off of higher ratings then I agree with you.  Although I don’t think those motives are really ‘secret’ as much as simply unstated in polite company (your doctor or lawyer or baker doesn’t usually come out and say to you “I’m just doing this ‘cause I make money doing it” they usually say “It was a pleasure helping you” or something like that but we don’t usually get upset that their motives are ‘secret’).

If, on the other hand, you are asserting that National Geographic has some secret agenda to promote gnosticism or to undermine Christian belief then I think you are wrong and you have presented no evidence at all for it.

This recommendation for subterfuge brings us full circle to Prof. Bainbridge’s earlier posting on the liberal religous leader encouraging Democrats to at least create the appearance of believing abortion is not a good thing. If these are the rules that some people want to play by, they have no claim to sympathy when people question their motives.

Actually if you followed the story you’d know that there are many people who are in the liberal camp and are pro-choice but honestly do not view abortion as a good thing and would feel more comfortable if the Democratic party would present it as such (as Clinton did when he advocated abortion be ‘safe, legal and rare’).  Yes sometimes politically orientated commentary takes on a Machalevian tone (emphasize this talking point, de-emphasize that) but after 8 years of Bush you seriously cannot be so blind as to see this as a Democratic/liberal only trait....if you are then you really are willing to drink whatever kool-aid they offer you…

Finally, as to the question whether “this concern for competing narratives might actually influence events occuring now,” I will note that Islam, too, offers a competing narrative of Jesus. Would contemporary American society be different if the Islamic Jesus narrative were accepted by broad segments of the population? I certainly think so. Similarly, it is fortunate for western civilization, that the Christian Church defended itself against gnostic teachings with its emphasis on the intrinsic evilness of the material world

This falls into the category of “not your business”.  By that I don’t mean that you shouldn’t argue against ‘competing narratives’ you feel ar wrong.  By that I mean it is not the job of a station, magazine or whatnot to distort or cover up the truth in case someone might make a mistake and believe something in error.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the media showing us what Muslims believe or showing us what some Christians believed long ago.  As I pointed out before I think many Christians will be very interested in this program simply because it is about an important historic discovery from the early history of Christianity.

I actually prefer modern Gnostisism: The universe was created by a sub deity. His contact with the material world has corrupted him and driven him crazy. The purpose of mankind is to transend the imperfection of creation. The sub-God’s last gasp effort effort was to have Jesus tell people to take care of each other.

That’s your right but I read a huge chunk of the excerpt the NYT published on http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/judastxt.pdf. As a historical document I find it a bit too cute.  It to me sounds like something written after the fact imagining what someone said.  In other words I do not think it is Judas’s actual historical account (or ‘his side’).  It may be possible that some of the material is true.  If you were an early Christian you probably got all of your information from listening to o ther people pass on stories they were told plus maybe some manuscripts....many of which were copied with numerous errors, improvisations and imperfections.  It may indeed be possible that Judas told some people some things before he died, they got passed down and made it into the document now found.  Do I think we will ever know for sure?  I doubt but its possible we may find other texts which might get us closer to the source.

In either case there is very little information available about the early Christians (heretics, orthodox and inbetween).  That makes this very newsworthy to people who like history which is a good part of the audience of National Geographic, the history channel etc.

Or maybe it’s just that you don’t like the fact that the politicians of the church sold out Christianity for their bowl of cold Roman porridge and the power to keep the rubes in thrall with their bullshit and baloney is now being unmasked.

“Organized Christianity” is founded on texts chosen for their political efficacy in supporting the interests of the powerful, the most obvious example being the least-accurate translation ever published, the King James Version, which all the fundamentalist morons fall down and worship, thereby demonstrating publically what morons they are.

One would think a “professor” of law could figure out the value of reading through the “legislative history” in determining the truth or lack thereof of the most political religion ever created by the rich to soak the poor.

But then that would mean that the word “conservative” is a synoym for “intelligent,” which you and your crew of cretins certainly are not.

So, Sharper admits that he/she doesn’t even have a TV, and yet he/she continues to insist that these programs must have an anti-Christian bias?  That’s really all you need to know about Sharper.

Sharper, I’m afraid, falls into the category of Christians who are quite insecure in their faith, who instead of embracing the teachings of Jesus, are constantly looking for the evil lurking under their beds, which is really just a projection from their own hearts (which may offer a clue as to why Sharper feels so threatened by the teachings of Christian Gnosticism, which emphasizes the evil nature of the material world).

Christians who are secure in their faith are filled with the love of Jesus and are not threatened by shows on the History channel.

Sharper says:  “although I have no television set...”

My heavens, that’s the craziest thing I ever read.  The mind boggles.  I have to lie down with a cold compress for awhile.

Boonton, I appreciate your engaging some of the arguments I am making rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. I agree with you that the broadcast media do not have any mission to evangelize. Nor do I object to National Geographic presenting such a program. The document in question is an interesting historical document. I simply make the observation that programs on non-orthodox understandings of Christian teachings routinely surface this time of year, I don’t think that is an accident, and I do not find it implausible to believe that opponents of Christianity use such stories to try to discredit orthodox Christian teaching.

I doubt very much that National Geographic is secretly pro-gnosticism. Nonetheless, just as there are religous believers who see themselves in a life and death struggle with modern science, there are proponents of science who see themselves in a life and death struggle with religion, especially Christianity, which they see as standing in the way of their vision of social and scientific progress. From such a perspective any historical discovery that seem to call into question orthodox Christian belief is a useful tool to defang the opponent.

Whether or not there are pro-choice liberals who do not believe abortion is a good thing, Prof. Bainbridge was correct in noting that in the cited case, the author suggested that the Democratic Party appeal to such voters with at least the pretense of such a belief. Like the comment that I cited about “conning the rubes,” there seems to be an attitude that it is appropriate to use lies to advance one’s case. And no, I do not think that such a political strategy is restricted to just the Democrats. But Prof. Bainbridge provided a particularly egreious example, since the public advice came from someone regarded as a religious figure.

I am sorry you missed the point about competing narratives. Another commentator had specifically requested an example of the real world impact of what he or she obviously regarded as an esoteric theological dispute. I happen to believe that differing religious or philosphical doctrines can lead people (and through them, society) to make radically different choices. Whether one believes that the orthodox Christian narrative prevailed over the gnostic narrative because of divine protection or simply craftier political strategy, western civilization is different (and I believe, better) for it.

Am I asking the media to cover up the history of Christianity? No, but let’s not protray the Gospel of Judas as representing Christian history, as you have repeatedly done. As I noted before (and acknowledged by the National Geographic’s web site), even at the time that the Gospel of Judas was written it was rejected by Christians. Gnosticism is its own unique religion that happened to intersect with Christianity. The story of that intersection is interesting, but the Gospel of Judas is ultimately a gnostic document. There is no reason why a Christian should seek information about the true teachings of Jesus in the religious writings of a group based upon secret teachings, as gnosticism is. Christian scriptures are based on Jesus’s public teaching. To vouchsafe the transmission of authentic teachings of Jesus (as opposed to mere snippets of quotations, the original context of which can never be recreated) in gnostic documents already steps outside Christian belief by positing that the orthodox Church got it wrong because its leaders didn’t know about the secret teachings that Jesus transmitted to his select inner circle.

Based on your comments, I am guessing that you are unfamiliar with the Didache and the Shepherd. If you are really interested in early Christian history and self-understanding, I highly recommend your reading these early texts. Unlike the various gnostic gospels, they had a real chance of being included in the Christian New Testament and tell us something about early Christian belief.

Good point. In fact, if you hadn’t cut off my sentence when you quoted it, you could’ve saved yourself the trouble of posting.

actually, you’ll note that i left off any mention of “sprituality” in what i wrote. so, Sherlock, i actually didn’t say the same thing you said. in fact, i said something quite different.

I don’t think NG is implying that the manuscripts are “legitimate” (and the definition of that is somewhat ambiguous, being based on a sliding scale of likely proximity in personal contact and time to Jesus, or do we simply trust the judgement of church councils 300 years later?) The new manuscripts are presented pretty much as is: someone unknown wrote them many decades after the crucifixion, and it is quite debatable what to think of them.

Am I asking the media to cover up the history of Christianity? No, but let’s not protray the Gospel of Judas as representing Christian history, as you have repeatedly done. As I noted before (and acknowledged by the National Geographic’s web site), even at the time that the Gospel of Judas was written it was rejected by Christians. Gnosticism is its own unique religion that happened to intersect with Christianity.

I don’t think you have presented any evidence that the Gospel of Judas is being presented as equal to the traditional Gospels.  Even the pro-gnostic NY Times op-ed writer cautioned that he could not tell if the gospel was true or not.  While I haven’t seen the National Geographic story/documentary I can point out that traditional Christians were given ample quote space in the NY Times story (Not surprisingly one was a Catholic priest/scholar...the Catholics have a huge amount of archives and religious scholars who study them).

This may be a minor quibble but Gnosticism was a Christian religion.  Any reasonable use of language would take Christian religion to be one that centered on Jesus Christ.  Gnosticism certainly did, although in a way rejected by today’s major Christian Churchs.  If it’s not a Christian religion then what would you call it?  A Jewish one?  Islamic?

Based on your comments, I am guessing that you are unfamiliar with the Didache and the Shepherd. If you are really interested in early Christian history and self-understanding, I highly recommend your reading these early texts. Unlike the various gnostic gospels, they had a real chance of being included in the Christian New Testament and tell us something about early Christian belief.

Indeed you are correct.  While I have heard of them before and even read a few summaries of them I have not read them or as much about them as I should.  Needless to say, I am woefully behind on many topics that I’d like to know more about.  Your efforts, though, are not in vein.  Your pleading will certainly help push those texts to the top of my list…

Simple logic tells you that in order for jesus to redeem the world of its sin his death and rebirth must occur, if jesus did not be betrayed then the world will still be rolling in sin. therefore judas saved the world by handing over jesus to be slaughtered for his redeeming blood. judas should be worshiped greater than how the catholics worship mary, thing is tradition and what other think is more important than truth and knowing god. the gospel of judas confirms this now.

What interesting comments, everyone.

It seems to me that the reason why traditional Christians are hostile to the publicity given this new gospel account is that gnosticism, with its emphasis on esoteric knowledge, has new-agey associations, including the putative relationship with eastern religion.

Though as an atheist I hold no brief for either strand of Jesus-religion, I think the traditionalists are right when they make a claim for the instrinsic superiority of exoteric religion--where all believers have access to the whole of religious knowledge and belief--over esoteric religion (represented here by gnosticism), which embraces mysteries accessible only to a small elite, and not to the common worshipper.

Notwithstanding this inherent superiority, the lure of the esoteric is strong; so the hostility is understandable.

Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, an early orthodox Christian writer wrote a treatise called AGAINST HERESIES (A.D. 180) where he denounces the Gospel of the Cainite gnostics called the Gospel of Judas.  But Seth rather than Cain is mentioned in the newly published Gospel of Judas.  Are these two Gospels of Judas one and the same?  A third century work ascribed to Tertullian, AGAINST ALL HERESIES, also attributes the Gospel of Judas to the gnostic followers of Cain.  Is this the same Gospel of Judas? Are the Sethite gnostics really the same as the Cainite gnostics as the editors of this book published by National Geographic (2006) would have us believe?  I am doubtful. So there is insufficent information in either of these accounts by the orthodox church fathers to be certain.  Therefore, I am sceptical, at this time, of ascribing a second century date to The newly published Gospel of Judas ascribed to the Sethites merely because a (more familiar yet unknown) Gospel of Judas acribed to the Cainites is mentioned and denounced by Irenaeus (180).

Nancy Irving,

Yes, secret knowledge that brings with it special power is a desire as old as time.  Just look at contemporary fantasy and science fiction.  This dynamic is highly instinctive and goes back to our most basic drive to survive and to make ourselves immortal by passing on our genes.  Survival becomes a lot easier if we have power over the elements, over nature, and over one another.  Which is why the acquisition of such power is a universal, timeless theme of religion, lore, and fiction.

Yes--and the desire for power would appear contrary to Jesus’ philosophy as expressed in the canonical gospels. “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The exercise of power over others has no place there.  So traditional Christianity’s considering gnosticism as heresy is hardly surprising.  It is, indeed, contrary to the basic tenets of traditional Christianity.

Wow, the people here disagreeing with the professor are pretty clueless about gnosticism and its history. Folks, this is as silly as it would be for National Geographic to promote a new special about a new claim that George Washington slept in some obscure town in New England. i.e. there are already HUNDREDS of documents expressing gnostic ideas and claiming a link to Jesus. Lo and behold, we find a new, totally insignificant one that reveals nothing new, and somebody hypes it into a major news event.

As the Professor says, this is “Yet Another” Gnostic Gospel. It’s not even the best one. Go read the Gospel of Thomas or read Elaine Pagels’ books instead, they’re better written than this one and more interesting. The real news story was at Nag Hamadi in 1945, and National Geographic is 61 years late to the news.

Thanks, Nancy, for generously getting to the crux of the issue after so much preceding sound and fury signifying so little. Reminds me again why God makes atheists.

National Geographic show of the Gospel of Judas has some antichrist innuendoes which must be nibbed in the bud.Church fathers of the early century had declared this seemingly new discovery as heterodox heresy.This so called gospel should be stopped.

"Reminds me again of why God makes atheists"--

Yes, and He loves us the best!

Needless to say it’s now the day after Good Friday and as I swing through the various educational type channels I see an endless array of programs about Orthodox Christianity.  Whether its the History Channel, Discovery, or even this technical channel that’s running what seems to be a marathon of ‘science of the Bible’ the mainstream media seems more than open to programs about traditional orthodox Christian thought.

In comparison a single program about a remarkable find hardly seems to be a mass movement by the media to fool us all into Gnosticism.

There is one explanation for why they did this now that doesn’t have to do with Dan Brown. The translators happened to have finished the translation and published it at this time. Now maybe NG decided to release the translation at this time because of Dan Brown’s book’s movie being released soon, but it’s at least not the direct reason why this special was on now. That’s because the translation was just released.

Boonton, there’s a difference between programs about orthodox Christianity and programs defending or promoting orthodox Christianity. This NG special clearly masked the facts in order to make it look as if this document threatens orthodox Christianity. That there are programs about orthodox Christianity that are usually at best neutral with respect to it does not touch the argument against producing such an imbalanced documentary and passing it off as careful research. They had zero scholars defending the mainstream scholarly view that the Gospel of Judas sheds no light on first century events until at the last minute they decided to bring Craig Evans in.

To those who seem to think the NT documents were as late as 150: virtually no scholar today thinks anything of the sort. Most scholars think the NT was complete or almost entirely complete by the 90s. The Johannine literature is generally dated that late. Even people who don’t think Paul wrote all of the books that claim his authorship place those usually no later than the 80s. Very good arguments have been advanced for most of the NT books that they were in existence before the temple’s destruction in AD 70. I don’t happen to think this is true of the Johannine literature, but I tend to think it’s true of all the other NT books.

The other issue is that this isn’t clearly the same Gospel of Judas Irenaeus wrote about. It has some things in common, e.g. it has Judas turning Jesus over in fulfillment of a command by Jesus. But it’s in Coptic. It may be a translation of a Greek original, but there’s no clear evidence that it isn’t just another Gnostic writing from later on in the same community saying a similar thing. But either way, even a writing that was fairly new in Irenaus’ time is at least a century later than most of the material in the canonical gospels, which was certainly circulating in the 40s and 50s of the first century even if it hadn’t been put into full form until Mark (which I place at about 50, though some put it in the 60s or 70s).

The entire New Testament was written within the generation of Jesus Christ and the Apostles (before ~96 AD). The Apostle John explicitly states multiple times that he is an eyewitness of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, the Book of Revelation, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. John lived until ~96 A.D, and he wrote the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) on the Island of Patmos, where he was exiled. 

The eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ explicitly state that their words are from God or “God-breathed.”

Long before the Catholic Church even existed, The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ (including John, Peter, Matthew, James and Paul) explicitly state that our eternity depends on faith in the true gospel, which includes the death & ressurection of Jesus Christ.

The choice is yours. The responsibility to make a choice is yours. The consequences of your choice will direct your eternity. (don’t be mad at me; I’m just the messenger)

PS: These eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ explicitly condemn false teachers and false teachings of New Age & Gnosticism as enemies of God.

Oy.