DeoOmnisGloria.com

Enough said. Thanks Jay for filtering out St. Irenaeus' rebuttal on this current issue. I will gladly distribute this to others.
May you and your family have a blessed Easter,
Matthew

Jay,

I don't understand the use or necessity of setting things up as a conflict between National Geographic and Irenaeus. The NG special of the GJudas seemed to me to be reasonably well done.

No biblical scholar worth his salt is considering this text to hold any historiographical insight into the "historical Judas"...but it does offer us further and very important insight into an early 2nd-3rd century Gnostic articulation of faith in Jesus.

Irenaeus' perspective represents, generally, that of the proto-orthodoxy of the majority of Christians at the time, who would naturally have seen - and in fact did identify - GThom as an articulation of faith that was heretical. But then, the proto-orthodox also recognized the faith of the oldest/earliest community of believers in Jesus to be heretical, namely, that of the "Sect of the Nazoreans" in Jerusalem - that is, Judaic Christianity which pre-dates Pauline Christianity.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given him anything that he may be repaid?" For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Jack

Jack,

National Geographic and other "respectable journals" are sinking to the level of tabloids and presenting the Gospel of Judas as "the real story" that has the Christian community quivering in their boots lest the historiographical truth be exposed and leave the Church in shambles.

The titles of the articles read like tabloids and pretend to be substantiated by biblical scholars worth their salt.

Even Time Magazine a few years ago reported that Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child. There is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim - though he did utter a rather unfortunate statement that has been misinterpreted as the basis for the outrageous claim.

BR,

The article in the latest National Geographic about the GJudas is very, very well done. It is not inflammatory, nor is it “sensational.” It is in fact, quite a well written, balanced appraisal of the significance of the Gospel of Judas for the study of early Christianity, and a very nice – if brief – introduction to the emergence of Orthodoxy from out a the diversity that was earliest Christianity.

Certainly, the Catholic Church is not “quivering in their boots” over this, and biblical scholars (Catholic and Protestant) are recognizing the true value of this ancient text. It will be refreshing to see a response to something like this in the future here (maybe?) that is measured, sober, and honest in its recognition of something significant like this text in fact, is.

Jack, I've seen some pretty shoddy journalism on the Gospel of Judas - but come to think of it the National Geographic article isn't on the list of things of I've read. I should not have been so hasty to assume it was like the other drivel I've seen.

Ever since the Time Magazine article on Luther believing that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, I've come to expect poor journalism on these issues. I should not let the past cloud my view of the present.

In my opinion, the National Geographic article was actually quite shoddy journalism. NG dances around the fact that Judas is not on a par with the canonical Gospels in terms of historicity. The article quotes Elaine Pagels, in general is a shoddy historian: "This changes the history of early Christianity." Readers are led to assume that by "early" Christianity "the scholars" mean 1st Century Christianity.

In fact, all but one of the scholars the National Geographic article quotes are well-known for their anti-orthodox views. Pagels is author of the Gnostic Gospels. Her new "Beyond Belief" claims (absurdly) that the Gospel of John was written in response to the "Gospel" of Thomas. Marvin Meyers is the author of numerous rather breathless and gullible books on the Gnostic Gospels -- he even supposes Islamic writings which appear most of a millennia after the life of Jesus may be good sources. Bart Ehrman also adheres uncritically to the Pagels line that there were many conflicting and equally valid schools of thought in early Christianity, that a hierarchical orthodoxy prevailed and unfairly squashed its competitors, and that the "Gnostic Gospels" are just as good as the canonical Gospels, if not more so.

The only orthodox Christian scholar the article quotes is Craig Evans. He is quoted twice. Both times, the author of the NG article follows those quotes by dismissing the substance of his comments. The first time, Evans points out (what is quite true) that the early Christians chose the canonical Gospels because they found them more "authentic." The writer immediately adds: "Or perhaps the alternatives were simply outmaneuvered in the battle for the Christian mind." The second time, Evan says, "There is nothing in the Gospel of Judas that tells us anything we could consider historically reliable." No legitimate scholar can argue with that, and the NR doesn't. Instead, it quotes Pagels: "We don't look to the gospels for historical information." So if we admit Judas is ahistorical, we must be "fair" and say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are, too. (In fact, historians, including ones Pagels has told me she greatly respects, DO look to the canonical Gospels for historical information, and find heaps of it. Pagels had not read their criticisms of her view that Thomas was early, though.) NG then quotes Ehrman as "agreeing" with Pagels: "This is big. A lot of people are going to be upset." (Why, if the text is ahistorical?) NG then cuts to a "Father Antony" in modern Egypt who "staggered against the door" in response to the theme of Judas, Bishop Irenaeus, and the suppression of heretics by the early Christian church, to illustrate Ehrman's point.

In effect, the NG article chose a panel of four scholars to discuss Judas: three skeptics who are big fans of the "Gnostic Gospel" line, and one orthodox Christian. Whenever the Christian speaks, NG immediately dismisses or relativizes his comments. It does not do this to the other scholars; rather it amplifies and illustrates their comments. The net effect is to dance around the ahistorical nature of Judas, pretending that the discovery of this metaphysical mini-novel will shake the foundations of Christianity, and then falling back to the position that, if not equally true, all "Gospels" must be equally false.

This, folks, is called "spin."

In my book, Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could, I show just how absurd this whole "Gnostic Gospel" fad really is. In fact, I argue, there are no other books that can reasonably be called Gospels besides the ones in the New Testament. (The truly remarkable character of which is often overlooked.) Even the "Gospel" of Thomas, which Pagels, Meyers, and like-minded scholars promote, is in fact more different from the Gospels than almost any other ancient work, and it is very unlikely that it has anything new to say about Jesus.

BR, I understand your reticence to trust “the media.” Unfortunately, when something like this – which is still relatively unique to hear/read about for most people – “the media” tries to do what it can to win the ratings race ($$$). We all know this – sensation sells.

What I hope is avoided is the majority of Christians feeling threatened by GJudas in large part because of “the media.” And subsequently, blinders are constructed (by fear) that disables folks from even considering the value of ancient texts like this one. I mean, already, it’s easy to hear/read apologists of a particularly evangelical inclination (Catholic and Protestant) who preach “Do not read that heretical text!!”…or, “Do not read the Nag Hammadi texts…Heresy, heresy!!” Heresy or not, these text offer us an invaluable look at the story of the emergence of the Church. And I think this is wonderful!!!

Peace!

David Marshall,

Pagels is a historian, and makes no claim to being "orthodox." Ehrman is likewise, a historian and makes no claim to orthodoxy. He does, however, make clear the reasons why he thinks GJudas is important.

Whether or not the "competing claims" in early CHristianity were or were not "equally valid" is something that cannot be suggested except in hindsight. From a faith perspective, only those that were canonized are judged to be "valid" for faith and morals, etc. etc., and rightly so. From a historian's perspective - i.e. one doing history that is accessible to ALL people, faithful and not - "validity" has nothing to do with whether or not it falls in line with an orthodoxy. Pagels and Ehrman (and I think Evans would agree whole heartedly) are correct in suggesting that at the time, when "history" (which is always messy business) was working itself out, there was in the first 2-3 centuries a number of articulations of faith in Jesus, each thinking itself to be correct, and the others not. What emerged as the beliefs of the majority (Orhtodoxy) eventually "won the day."

That is simply the way the "history" of it all shook down.

Your problem really has only to do with the fact that Pagels and Ehrman are not Christians, but rather historians doing history, and nothing more. As I said in my last note to BR, this will threaten some CHristians as it apparently has threatened you. But your response, as a Christian response, is not the only viable "Christian" response.

Peace.

Jack

I couldn't help but interject in your observations with Mr. Marshall. Indeed historians should be interested in the development of the faith as you have noted. But what does not follow is that because someone is a "historian" all of a sudden this is the metric of neutrality. By the same token because a historian may be a Christian does not mean that this individual is automatically biased. I would could and can effectively argue the converse, that the Christian would pursue a more neutral stance to clarify legitimacy of observations.

Indeed the entire comment by Marshall is quite a bit more fluid in terms of logic than what you suggest.

In Love

when we were one

David Marshall,

Actually, your summary of what you think Bart Ehrman thinks is reasonably “right on target” as far as historians can tell (Orthodox or not). Working off of a sentence from your response, though with only a few editions: There were in fact, many conflicting articulations of faith in Jesus Messiah in early Christianity (which is better referred to still as a form of “Judaism”) – even as early as the 1st century. What would eventually become known as “Orthodoxy” (some time after Constantine, but referred to as “proto-Orthodoxy” by historians) did indeed prevail and so effectively silenced its competitors (no need for judgments of fairness here. History is history, and it shakes down as God wills it). The Gnostic Gospels are indeed “just as good as the canonical Gospels” from the perspective of historiography since they give us a rather tidy, though still incomplete, window into one particular expression of faith in Jesus Christ prior to Orthodoxy’s victory. From a Christian canonical perspective, well, they leave a bit to be desired.

Peace.

Hello WWWO,

You are absolutely right that being a “historian” does not make one, or one’s methodology, “the metric of neutrality.” And equally correct that the “Christian” historian is not necessarily without bias either. But that is exactly what was at the heart of David Marshall’s complaint/presupposition – that non-orthodox historians are necessarily biased, and Christian historians are necessarily not biased, or at least more attuned to neutrality.

With regard to making a case that a faithful historian would produce less biased results than a non-faithful one will have to be an argument burdened by presupposition that non-orthodox historians by nature (human nature? Fallen human nature? Faith-less human nature?) or by method (??) are necessarily predisposed toward yielding problematic results – while a faithful one is (perhaps) somehow protected from error, or something of the kind. Even as a Catholic Christian, which I am, I would find such a case tenuous. Indeed, I would make a case that any orthodox historian that begins by his/her work claiming neutrality, is committing one of the principle mistakes of historical method – that is, NOT recognizing the impossibility of unalloyed historiographical perspective. Such a mistake would no doubt lead to hopeless anachronism and certainly Western-European ethnocentrism with respect to results.

Blessings,
Jack

Jack

I am concerned regarding your new position. These *historians* can claim *history is history.* But we must make clear that *whitewashed history is not the truth.*

For example, 2000 years from now *historians* dig up an old library from 2006. In this library they find a complete Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) as well as the compilation of National Enquirers (NE). Just because a *historian* attests that the (NE) is as truthful as the (EB) are you going to buy that comment or are you going to question the veracity of that *historian.* Marshall is doing the latter.

Marshall follows commonsense and the scriptural directions: "Matthew 7:16 - You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? Hebrews 6:8 - But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned." He goes out and notes their predilection to couch torpid conjecture as the truth! See his 2nd paragraph.

On the other hand I admire your promulgation of reason. But the rationale given to accept a view labeled as *reviewed by a historian* equal to *the truth* circumvents reason itself.

The *reasons* the church fathers reject the Gnostic Gospels are grounded in facts of the time. Certainly you wouldn't put the avaricious scribblings of a gossip columnist on par with that of an established investigative reporter. Why do you legetimize the gossip? This is what the fathers are saying: Gnostics cannot claim the crown of the true faith because they fail to trace themselves back to the original 12 hence the One(see Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett examples from scripture and history). Does a policeman investigating a crime goto the eyewitnesses for the report or do they rely on a person a city or nation removed from the scene?

Now if what you are trying to say is that: Gnostic gospels are interesting in order to reveal the truth about the beliefs of those societies then I agree fully with you. Further if zealots would cast the books to the flame I would hand you the extinguisher. But because *Pagel says so* in no way validates her view that a Gnostic belief is valid because it existed at the same time as Catholicism. Listerine was sold along with snake oil in the 1800's but one kills germs and one kills people...even if *the snake oil salesman says so.*

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

First, if Marshall is following Matthew 7:16 (or Hebrews 6:8 – whether he was or not does not matter), he likely does so from a faith perspective. Neither Pagels nor Ehrman would consider these texts as necessary guiding principle’s for either their own construing of history, or of their determining if any particular construal of history is “valid” or not. From their perspective, it is method that matters. Marshall’s determination that the National Geographic article is junk is based on HIS OWN NARRATIVE of the contents of the article (driven, I think, by a feeling of being threatened). How is it then, that I can read the article and be quite pleased with its contents ( what I consider to be reasonably balanced and measured), and he can read it and consider it crap from a “rag” equal to the National Enquirer (they both do after all, share the word “National” in their title)???

The reasons the church fathers rejected the Gnostic Gospels is because the Gnostics did not evince the same portrait of Jesus as they did, that is, the Jesus that the emergent “rule of faith” imagined, was vastly different than what could be imagined from the Gnostic texts. With respect to apostolicity of the writings of Church Fathers vis-à-vis the Gnostic Gospels, well, the Gnostics obviously cared little about tracing their own authority back to the original twelve. [Ironically, the articulation of faith of the original 12 apostles, i.e. Judaic Christianity, was eventually out done by the proto-Orthodox majority, who looked to apostolicity as a proof of their validity].

I’ve never spoken personally with Pagels, so I cannot suggest I know exactly what she means, but I suspect… I suspect that her claim that Gnostic belief was, at that time, equally valid along with proto-Orthodoxy is because from the perspective at that time – before history was finished shaking itself out – Gnostic faith in Jesus was one of many faiths in Jesus. Proto-Orthodoxy was the majority – not at first though, Judaic Christianity was the first! – and Gnostic Christianity (as well as Ebionitism, Marcionism, etc. etc.) was a minority. But ALL of them articulated faith in Jesus Christ, and ALL of them thought their’s was right and the others’ were wrong – regardless of how they substantiated their claims (whether by apostolic succession or by divine inspiration from an emanation of the divine). In that historical context (not any other historical context), each articulation was as valid as the other. This sort of position comes from good historical method that at least attempts to immerse itself in the context of its source materials. That said, this does not validate claims that Christianity should embrace Gnosticism today as a valid articulation of faith for Orthodox Christians to hold. This is, I think, the sort of message “the media” wants to come out of all this – because it cause controversy, and controversy means $$$. I know that Ehrman, at least, is more interested in simply conveying what the situation was in the first 3 or 4 centuries of the Church. I do think that he admires the fact that, at least for a time, several articulations of faith in Jesus co-existed (the New Testament bears witness to the coexisting of Judaic and Pauline Christianities, however tensive it was [cf. the Jerusalem Council]). But also think hosting that sort of diversity today is unlikely, while Ehrman may (hopefully) imagine that it is possible.

Peace

Jack

Indeed Pagel needs not adhere to scriptural directions but Pagel needs to adhere to the critical historiographical model. I note above: 1) validating a position simply because of temporal concurrence is not consistent with the historiographical methodology or else the National Enquirer is on par with the Washington Post. 2) further, forcing a *strawman* on the early christians saying that the *reason* they declined the Gnostic gospels simply because they (Gg) disagreed with orthodoxy is a truncated truth... a parsed innuendo. It is a motivation not a reason.

To offer such insinuation misleads the reading public to view early christians as a herd of historical lemmings. When their (orthodox christians) *reason* remains that these gnostics had no apostolic roots therefore this *gnosis* was the snake oil next to the listerine.

In Love

when we were one

Gentlemen, Confusion between what was reported by NG and interpreted by some as a holocast against the current orthodox CHRISTIAN dogma is absurd. I found both the NG article and the video very fair and balanced. As a child, growing up in a Christian environment, I had misgivings about many things I was expected to accept as the un-varnished truth, since Christ himself bade us to seek the truth to be truly free. I am quite comfortable mixing resources with secular and religious authors to help in this quest. None could ever believe that historical devices employed by medieval societies, against their fellow man could have demonstrated a search for religious enlightenment. Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci and many others paid for their heresies with torture, excomunication and death. Since Holy Roman attitudes dominated medieval thinking, just as it must have dominated the Council of Nicaea, there is little doubt that only a few Gospels, those recognised by the Greek and Roman pontificates, would have prevailed. Politicians seeking power and control are good examples that we tollerate even today.

Phil

Greetings and welcome. You seem like a reasoned and historical man.

But do we smell so much of rookie that you give reason and history such an extreme beating here on this blog?

Let me get this straight.

A) We shouldn't trust the Council of Nicea's views on scripture because YOU SAY they were biased.
B) We should trust your opinion on NG because YOU SAY you are not biased.

I don't feel *enlighenment* I smell narcissism. But being a bit narcissistic myself, I gave you the benefit as a self-absorbed comrade and plunged deeper into the morass. In attemting to empathize with your thoughts I am immediately assaulted by this multi armed mixed historical metaphor *varnished* as deductive reasoning?

A) Medieval society (1100 ad on) was dominated by the Latin church
B)therefore Nicea (300s)was dominated by those Latins.

A) Copernicus, Galileo and da Vinci were supposedly tortured by the church
B)therefore the church corruptly stands against science?

Sir if you met a dog that bit you, do all dogs bite?I think you get my point. Both arms fail deduction. Further, let us examine the wobbly torture premise. You matter of factly note "Copernicus and da Vinci tortured and supressed? May I see your sources? This must be well known, no? Indeed many half truths sit waiting for the idle amongst us. But as a fellow reasonable narcissist, I am compelled to look further. Let me share what I found by Karl Keating a pretty famous debunker:

"Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements." read the rest of the article here http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

But reasoned men would wonder: "why would Copernicus dedicate his work to Pope Paul III" Then they would seek. An irrational conspiracy brute would portend anything from the dedication. Here is what I found from theologian/philosopher Mark Wheeler:

"In a minor astronomical work, Commentariolus, not printed during his lifetime, he first proposed a heliocentric theory of cosmology, placing the sun at the center of the solar system. This led many of his friends to request that he publish his findings. Among these were Cardinal Schonberg of the Roman Curia, Bishop Giese of Culm, and the future Pope Paul III. Schonberg insisted that Copernicus publish his material in the interest of science.

A young Lutheran scholar, Rheticus, left his chair of mathematics at Wittenberg (where, in 1517, Martin Luther had posted his 95 theses on a church door) to work with Copernicus in Poland and to prepare the scientist's manuscripts for publication--an early example of ecumenical cooperation. A summary of Coper-nicus's findings was released, and it met with tremendous hostility from Protestant theologians; there was no such general hostility from Catholics. Rheticus was barred from returning to his post at Wittenberg.

At the insistence of Clement VII the material was expanded into the great work of Copernicus' career, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), which officially proposed a sun-centered theory to the world. The printed book, dedicated to Clement's successor, Paul III, reached Copernicus just hours before his death on May 24, 1543."

Well Phil, perhaps our premise is now down to Galileo not so inductive now is it? But a reasoned man would seek the cause of abuse (was it an attempt to supress a scientific text?) if it did occur on our lone witness. A conspiracy brute would have had his answer without further discourse... and we reasoned narcissists disdain conspiracy brutes don't we? Here Arizona astrophotographer Wil Milan sets his sites on this precise issue:

"Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries...Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book...As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the "dialogue" was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.

But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope's views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.

It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church but also because he did not have Galileo's biting arrogance."

So flawed premises and all a pretty fun exercise in fact finding. You seem versed on medieval history... Here is a 4 star amazon book written by a well respected, ivy league educated, medieval professor that may scrub away some of that whitewash. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260387/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/103-8636570-9851066?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Charitably

when we were one

Post a comment