One of the guys on my floor was talking to me about this the other night. A following conversation about the canon and the apocrypha followed accordingly as well. The finding of The Gospel of Judas apparently has sparked a lot of debate about Christ and the Canon. To be honest, I really do not see why people jump on these things just because a guy in Zurich spent 4 million on it. The Gospel of Judas is just one in many other "Gospels" or testaments of various others such as Thomas, Mary, Peter, and so on, and we are bound to find more out there because they most certainly exist. Many texts of other Gospels and Apocalypses are used for insight into semantic meanings of Greek words, which are thus helpful to translation of the Bible. Sadly, Judas is not helpful in this way since it is written in Coptic. To me, this Gospel seems to follow a common thread of Gnostic influence that was not uncommon in any way in antiquity. However, just because a manuscript is found that was two hundred years after Christ's death, does not mean that it is true.
The Judas Gospel was probably pseudonymous, which was a common trait in ancient literature. Apocryphal books were often known to be pseudonymous and were still accepted by some into the canon. However, there are also examples where using someone else's name is taken very poorly. For instance, III Corinthians was attributed to Paul, although pseudonymous. Those who knew this were greatly upset at the lie and had clear scruples about using the identity of an Apostle. I say this because some of the books in our Christian Canon have been thought to be pseudonymous by many scholars, and were debated hotly when up for acceptance into the Canon. Let's say that the disputed books are not original (2 Peter, Revelation, 2, 3 John) and were written by someone with sound teaching high up in the Christian community. These books then have truth in them about God and God's plan in them. During the councils that met to finalize the Canon, there was a set of Characteristics or rules that the members followed to determine the validity of the book in question. The ones in the Bible today met all the theological, doctrinal, Christological, and logical requirements set forth by the members. The council was made so that arguing over books would stop, and influences from Gnostic writings and other low Christological works would cease.
Even if we opened the Canon back up today, which we shouldn't, the Gospel of Judas does not meet the requirements for acceptance into the Canon. If this text had been in Greek and brought up at the councils, it would have been shot down without question. I hope next time that a new Gospel is found it is in Greek, so at least some worth can be drawn from it outside a history channel special report. I trust the church fathers of old. I trust those who gave up false letters to authorities while under persecution while dying for the ones that spoke of God's truth. And I trust that it's all in God's hands, and that he has used people over the years to provide and preserve his word
0 Responses to “Gospel of Judas”
Post a Comment