The Gospel of Judas
Did you read the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail article today (Friday, April 7th 2006, concerning the newest gnostic text re-discovered: the Gospel of Judas? The paper caught my eye before my less-than-well-done exam this morning with this revelatory headline story--coinciding interestingly with the verdict in the DaVinci Code plagiarism trial. The big deal: in this text Judas is the only disciple who understands the sidereal spirit of the Christos, a Jesus who laughs and jeers at the other disciples, reveals the mysteries of heaven to Judas exclusively, and later asks Judas personally to betray him in order to affirm His mythical destiny. After a semester of studying Northrop Frye's The Great Code and Double Vision with Professor B.W. Powe, a spare reading knowledge of Elaine Pagels's scholarship and Gnostic texts myself, in addtion to reading Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ recently, I can't help but think it's about bloody time.posted by Davyth | 11:33 PM
4 Comments:
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm not sure what to think. I think they dated the MS to about 300 AD, which would make it over 200 years after the synoptic gospels (70ish AD?). There is little doubt, however, that the Bible as we now have it, especially but not only the New Testament, is the result of years of editorial work, expurgation, etc. especially during the early years of the church. The Gnostic gospels have only come to light about 50 years ago, so this was an interesting century for that kinda stuff. At the same time, this changed nothing: even if it were somehow proved that the Gospel of Judas (or any similar text) is 100% true, the Vatican would not be inclined to change anything, and neither would most followers. Revelations such as this have 2000 years of tradition and inveterate teachings/prejudices to deal with, and you can't topple that overnight.
The Gnostic movement will definitely not topple worldwide orthodoxy--too many people hold it close to heart--, but it's opening up, or, rather, reviving an ancient way of thinking about religion.
I think I made this point on my blog for Professor Kuin's class--the four levels of exegesis (not that they were ever dead) are making a serious come-back, and, in fact, as Tom Harpur argued in his controversial book The Pagan Christ, reinvigorating religion with old and new meaning.
I read the Gospel of Judas Friday night, sparse and fragmented as it is, but I was not jarred or startled by it. But then again I've never adhered to any orthodoxy--doctrine, that is.
The shocking difference: Gnosticism is pure imagination--stressing mythical and allegorical (spiritual) meaning--and nothing historical. In the case of this Gospel, Jesus and Judas are not really historical personalities so much as mythical characters. The absence of distant historical authority--think Vatican and Catholicism--is troubling for a lot of people. Especially to think about Judas--traditionally the conspiring Jesus-betrayer of the Gospels--as a hero.
Thinkers such as Frye and Harpur have long argued against historical interpretations of the Bible. This is not to say that nothing in the Bible is historically true.
In the final analysis, even The Pagan Christ shouldn't shake one's faith. After all, it is the myth or the message that counts. Often people who stress historical accuracy over everything else are not secure in their own faith.
I've always been intrigued by the outrage in response to authors who 're-tell' their own mythical Jesus story--Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ, Mikhail Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, Jose Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, Nino Ricci's Testament, Christopher Moore's Lamb, and Anne Rice's Christ the Lord--to name a few.
It's interesting how the more writers 'de-sacrilize' (as an anthropologists would put it) the Gospels--the more new mythical meaning is actually liberated. Interesting paradox.
Post a Comment
<< Home