Friday, April 07, 2006

The Gospel of Judas

Isn't it interesting in terms of timing that I do a few posts on Gnosticism, and here comes a slate of news stories about the so-called Gospel of Judas. The hype suggests it's the greatest discovery since the Resurrection of Christ. No, it really isn't. It's merely another spurious (in the sense that the story contained within is bogus) Gnostic Gospel rejected soundly by the church centuries ago. Here is a piece by Dr. Al Mohler regarding the Gospel of Judas. I recommend reading it and keeping it in your records.



lee n. field said...

Speaking of texts to save, James White ( posted a link to a pdf of the Gospel of Judas (

He says " Most folks with a modicum of common sense will go, 'Oh, well, that sure is odd...and disjointed...and poorly written...and irrelevant' upon doing so." That was in fact my reaction to it. It's a two day wonder.

Campisi said...

To be fair, the poorly written and disjointed qualities of the work are due to the nature of the Codex itself. This Codex was translated into Coptic from Greek, explaining much of the sometimes odd language in the work. The disjoined aspect of it is due to just that: this section of the Codex was indeed severely damaged from improper handling, creating multiple holes in the text.

SolaMeanie said...

Whatever the condition of the Codex, it doesn't change the fact that the theological issues come from numerous sources, not just the Gospel of Judas. Gnosticism has been amply refuted throughout church history. Now that a new, ignorant, misguided generation has rediscovered Gnostic errors much in the manner of a child finding Chocolate Ex-Lax and thinking it's candy, it must be refuted again.

The mistake I find being made by many pro-Gnostics is their rather arrogant assumption that people who defend an orthodox reading of Scripture are somehow ignorant rubes who have never studied this issue. They seem to think orthodox Bible scholars are nothing more than a group of men in overalls sitting around a country store stove in Appalachia, passing the spitoon around while charming snakes and trying to puzzle out the King James Version in a Southern drawl. It might be relatively easy to confuse someone who has only a modicum of Sunday school teaching, however you're dealing with a different set here.

Campisi said...

I in no way consider Biblical scholars to be the stereotypical southerner you describe above. My orthodox Bible studies have been overseen by some of the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure to meet; I consider the majority of them to be my intellectual equal, if not superior. My beliefs on Gnosticism are sourced from my own convictions and my own studies, and are in no way driven by any secular motivations. Besides, from what I have gathered, these "refutations" tend to be little more than the orthodox church's side of an ongoing debate with those that have differing opinions on Biblical issues. Gnosticism was not a flash-in-the-pan cult that was soundly crushed by a "correct" church; it was and is an ongoing tradition that has been driven out to the fringe of Christianity by those who disagree with it.

I don't really blame those such as Bishop Iraneus; they were doing what they sincerely felt was best for the church as a whole. I just don't agree with some of what they did in order to advance their ideas.

SolaMeanie said...

See my comments on the Gnostic Medusa post..part one.