Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel of little value to Christians, says analyst

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 3

, Apr 17, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- The latest media frenzy over the Gospel of Judas reveals “the [secular] media's profound ignorance of ancient history,” says Brian St. Paul, editor of Crisis Magazine, in his April 13th e-letter to readers.

The third-century manuscript claims that Jesus took Judas aside three days before the Last Supper and asked the apostle to turn Him in. In turn, the secular media has reported, Judas wasn't such a bad guy after all and Christianity may have gotten the whole thing wrong from the start.

But Brian St. Paul points out that the Gospel of Judas is one of the many Gnostic gospels, which “offer no reliable historical insight into the actual events of the first century.” In sum, the Gospel of Judas is “hardly a theological earthquake.”

“Gnosticism was a parasite theology. It latched onto whatever religion was available and rewrote the host's scriptures and doctrines to fit its own unique beliefs,” explains St. Paul. “Often, the villains of the original religion were turned into the heroes of the Gnostic variation.”

St. Paul explains that one of the primary tenets of Gnosticism is salvation through hidden or secret knowledge. The Gospel of Judas begins by stating that it is “the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot.”

“While the Gospel of Judas sheds no light on historical Christianity, it is nevertheless a significant find,” says St. Paul. “After all, it's a pretty big deal when an ancient work long considered lost is rediscovered. And the document does flesh out the heavenly pantheon of second-century Gnosticism.”

St. Paul concludes by quoting St. Irenaeus and his comments in A.D. 180 on the historical unreliability of the Gospel of Judas: “[The Gnostics] declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion.”

“They produce a fictitious history of this kind,” he added, from “which they style the Gospel of Judas” (Adversus haereses 1:31:1).

Comments: 3

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Saralee Wisner
Albuquerque, NM 04/24/2006 08:09 PM EST

Brian St. Paul is essentially correct in his description of Gnosticism. The councils of the early Church were called to combat the confusion caused by Gnosticism, Arianism, & other heresies--and to clarify Christian doctrine for believers. That is precisely why Christ gave the apostles & their successors (the bishops in union with the Pope) the authority to make these clarifications. That the truth has survived 2,000 years of heretical attempts to destroy that truth is clear testimony to the promise made by Our Lord that the "gates of Hell" would not prevail against her.

Published by: John McCormick
Lewiston, Maine, USA 04/18/2006 07:19 AM EST

It is true though that John's Gospel was based on his own witness and was written earlier than most. Now as for their historical reliablility, do you believe Josephus is historically reliable? Or any ancient Roman or Greek historian reliable? We have found out in recent times that journalism isn't always historically reliable. The New York Times has been known to overstate a fact or two.

Published by: John Healy
Washington, DC 04/17/2006 04:15 PM EST

Brian St. Paul states that the Gospel of Judas is not reliable as a historical source. He fails to mention that Irenaeus is hardly historically reliable. (Irenaeus did not know which Gospel was written first!) The four gospels in the Canon are not historically reliable either.

Brian St. Paul sadly overstates his objections. His description of Gnosticism is not historically correct. Many of the doctrines of the Church were not formulated until after Gnosticism became popular. It is not true that orthodox doctrine developed and then heresies like Gnosticism developed doctrine to oppose orthodoxy. There were many competing forms of Christianity in its first two centuries. It is not clear that the Apostles would recognize or understand the doctrine that became accepted in the Church in the 4th century.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com