David Kopel imagines so:
Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."
A reader who knew her ancient history would recognize that the newly-discovered "Arnold document" was almost certainly not a historically accurate account of the relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. The reader would know that the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "abolition of private property" come from a political philosophy, Marxism, which was created long after Washington and Arnold were dead. The reader would also know that the most reliable records from the 18th century provided no support for the theory that Washington or Arnold favored a dictatorship of the proletariat or the abolition of private property.
This Friday's coverage of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous.
Meanwhile, Scrappleface 'reports' that
Christian book stores expect a flood of customers for the new gospel, and are already selling handcuff bracelets with the inscription WWJD: “What Would Judas Do?”
Be sure to ask for it at the counter.
2 comments:
"The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous."
In fact, the idea that the mainstream media claimed that the Gospel of Judas "disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus" is itself preposterous.
Of all the mainstream reporting I've seen on it (USA Today, Los Angeles Times, New York Times), it is always mentioned that this gospel was declared to be heresy at the time by Irenaeus, was clearly written by gnostics, and does not provide any new historically accurate information about Judas.
In the New York Times piece, "In Ancient Document, Judas, Minus the Betrayal" By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD and LAURIE GOODSTEIN (April 7, 2006), at most it was declared that "some scholars are saying that this Gospel sheds new light on the historical relationship between Jesus and Judas," but the same piece went on to quote Irenaeus' remark that the Gnostics "produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas" and then went on to note that "At least one scholar, James M. Robinson, said the new manuscript did not contain anything likely to change traditional understanding of the Bible. [...] 'Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas,' he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07judas.html
In the Los Angeles Times piece, "Judas Is No Traitor in Long-Lost Gospel," By Thomas H. Maugh II (April 7, 2006), nowhere states that the Gospel provides new historical information, but always discusses the piece in terms of the competing world views of early Christians.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-judas7apr07,1,2445824.story
And the USA Today piece, "Long-lost gospel of Judas recasts 'traitor,'" by Dan Vergano and Cathy Lynn Grossman (April 6, 2006), clearly states that "The Judas gospel is probably a copy of a heretical text denounced by a Christian bishop around A.D. 180," and even is careful enough to quote one scholar to the effect that "there is no way to be certain it is the same text, given the plethora of devotional texts that were floating around among early Christians." The piece, in a section entitled, "'No bearing' on the Easter story," declares that "The Judas gospel has 'no bearing whatsoever on (the Easter) story, much less on the faith of the Christian church,' said the Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. He dismissed the gospel of Judas as nothing more than 'an ancient manuscript that tells an interesting story.'" In addition, the piece declares that "'It is clear [...] that Judas did not write this work,' [religious scholar Mark] Chancey said. The gospel clearly reflects second-century developments, long after Judas, he said."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-04-06-judas_x.htm
The articles do say that the Gospel of Judas might provide an occasion for reconsidering the clear antisemitism of orthodox portrayals of Judas, but none claims that the Gospel of Judas has any authentic information to provide about the historical Judas. One might try to declare that questioning Christianity's anti-Semitism is "disprov[ing], or cast[ing] into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus," but that would only be true if mainstream Christians themselves hadn't already recognized the anti-Semitism of their own tradition, which, of course, they have already recognized. On the other hand, if one believes that the traditional account, in its anti-Semitism, was right, then yes, that view might be challenged by considering the avowedly heretical text, merely as an example of other ways of conceiving Judas, historically founded or not.
Andrew Belli writes of the National Geographic special: "No one really sees it as an authentic record of Jesus or Judas, but more as a glimpse into 2nd century gnostic theology."
see
http://andrewbelli.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-arnold-found.html
Post a Comment