The Gospel Of Judas
I was thinking this morning about the word 'contradicts', and the power that this little word has. It has power, because when we say that something contradicts something else, or that some person contradicts someone else, there is often an implicit/implied suggestion that the thing/person doing the contradicting has the authority to contradict.That's a dangerous implication, and often not true.
Here's why I was thinking about this...
I stumbled accross the following headline: Gospel of Judas contradicts everything we know about Christianity.
Now the obvious, most reasonable and rational response to this is to say: so what?
The Gospel of Judas was written a good fifty to a hundred years after all the eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ, and it doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out that if you're going to make a choice between a plethora of eyewitness accounts and a fifty-years-after-the-fact hearsay, the choice is obvious.
The choice is so obvious that our legal/court system makes a fundamental distinction between eyewitness and hearsay.
But now look at the title of the article again: Gospel of Judas contradicts everything we know about Christianity
Because the writer has used the word "contradicts", the unwary reader will slip into thinking that the Gospel of Judas has enough authority and reliability that it ought to be taken seriously when it contradicts every eyewitness account and every known historical fact about the life of Christ.
Look at another example. I could post an article on my blog titled: Joe Holden's Revolutionary Theories Contradict Everything We Know About the Universe, and then proceed to explain that if Joe Holden's theories are correct, our understanding of gravity, our understanding of the nature of the solar system and the nature of the Earth itself have to be thrown out the window.
And because I used that very powerful word "Contradicts", many people would take it seriously.
Until I told them that Joe Holden was a crackpot from Otisfield, Maine, who claimed that the world was flat, and proved it by putting a bucket filled with water on a tree stump overnight. In the morning, the bucket was filled, and Joe reasoned that if the earth really was spherical, and rotated on its axis, at midnight it would be upside down, and all the water would drain out.
Now you don't take it so seriously, do you?
In Otisfield, Maine, every year they have Joe Holden Day, complete with a parade and a picnic. But you know what? Just because Joe Holden contradicted our notions of the universe, just because he has his own parade and picnic, doesn't mean that anyone believes what he has to say.
Likewise, just because the Gospel of Judas (which, obviously, was not written by Judas, since he'd been dead at least 50 years by the time it was written!) contradicts what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote about Christ, doesn't mean that anyone needs to believe what it says. In fact, since this Gospel contradicts so many eyewitness accounts, our court system would tell us that's a very good reason to discount it entirely, and not a reason to discount the eyewitnesses.
The really amusing part of the article about the Gospel of Judas was that the author was desperately trying to reinterpret the eyewitness accounts in light of the Gospel of Judas.
And my question, in response to this irrational reinterpretation is: WHY?
The word "contradicts" isn't that powerful.
Posted On Apr 2, 2007 at 11:03 AM
On Apr 3, 2007 jst wrote: 50 year estimate is generous. Those promoting the gospel of judas say it wasn't written until 150 AD. Over a hundred years after the crucifixion.
Doug Replied: thanks. I think I started out saying 50 to 100, and I probably should have just settled on a hundred, so's not to confuse people!
On Apr 3, 2007 A. Nonymous wrote: Of course, your "eyewitness" accounts were written 40-60 years after "the fact". They also liberally borrow text from each other.
Doug Replied: probably more in the area 25-55 years - with all but John on the much earlier end, but essentially correct. I see that you put "eyewitness" in quotes, which is fine - I understand many won't accept the premise that they are eyewitness accounts. But the point is that those touting the Gospel of Judas do accept them as eyewitness accounts - eyewitness accounts which (according to them) were based on flawed understanding that was corrected by a document written 100 years after the fact.
|
Doug's Random ThoughtsEverything from Soup to Nuts,And Maybe Even More! ABOUT ME Current PostsBlog Is Moving...Emergency Room Last Entry Join The Chorus Jeorge Sings A Hymn 
|