Gospel of Judas
Apr. 9th, 2006 12:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaThe whole text is available as a PDF from the copyright holders, the National Geographic Society. (That's an amusing conspiracy theory in itself, especially if one views them as an front for either the Planetary Society or the Super Adventurers Club.)
The gospel itself really isn't that big a deal. It's late enough that it has explicit references to Barbelo, a Gnostic term which probably dates it to the second century--at least seventy-five years after the death of the historical Jesus. The gospel is completely and unexcitingly in the Gnostic tradition, not a mainline Christian work at all, and in fact was written in and for a community which was in active combat with the Christians. It offers "new insight into the relationship between Jesus and Judas" in much the same way that Scott McCloud's The New Adventures of Lincoln offers new insight into the role of Lincoln in fighting the Franco-Prussian war, which is to say about as much as the Coen Brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? gives to the progress of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927.
We knew of the existence of the Gospel of Judas from Iraneaus's condemnation of it in 180 AD; it's nice to have confirmation of the basic factual accuracy of his assessment of it in Against Heresies. There are odd early paraChristian works like The Gospel of Peter and The Infancy Gospel of James that shed light on early Christian communities and Christian traditions--parts of the Gospel of Peter might predate the final drafts of the canonical gospels, and parts of James contributed to the tradition of the eternal virginity of Mary. But the Gospel of Judas isn't in that category; it's just another Barbelo-Gnostic work. Which is to say, interesting if you think the Barbelo-Gnostics are interesting, but not revelatory.
If Gospel of Judas makes more people aware of the Barbelo-Gnostics, that's probably a good thing, though.
Update: The joys of asynchronous posting: I just discovered that sturgeonslawyer made more or less the same post as this, except in greater depth, two days ago.
The gospel itself really isn't that big a deal. It's late enough that it has explicit references to Barbelo, a Gnostic term which probably dates it to the second century--at least seventy-five years after the death of the historical Jesus. The gospel is completely and unexcitingly in the Gnostic tradition, not a mainline Christian work at all, and in fact was written in and for a community which was in active combat with the Christians. It offers "new insight into the relationship between Jesus and Judas" in much the same way that Scott McCloud's The New Adventures of Lincoln offers new insight into the role of Lincoln in fighting the Franco-Prussian war, which is to say about as much as the Coen Brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? gives to the progress of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927.
We knew of the existence of the Gospel of Judas from Iraneaus's condemnation of it in 180 AD; it's nice to have confirmation of the basic factual accuracy of his assessment of it in Against Heresies. There are odd early paraChristian works like The Gospel of Peter and The Infancy Gospel of James that shed light on early Christian communities and Christian traditions--parts of the Gospel of Peter might predate the final drafts of the canonical gospels, and parts of James contributed to the tradition of the eternal virginity of Mary. But the Gospel of Judas isn't in that category; it's just another Barbelo-Gnostic work. Which is to say, interesting if you think the Barbelo-Gnostics are interesting, but not revelatory.
If Gospel of Judas makes more people aware of the Barbelo-Gnostics, that's probably a good thing, though.
Update: The joys of asynchronous posting: I just discovered that sturgeonslawyer made more or less the same post as this, except in greater depth, two days ago.
