New Yorker Article Hogwash on Gospel of Judas
Judas was a good guy? That's what Joan Acocella tries to point out from her analysis of the Gospel of Judas in the August 3, 2009, edition of The New Yorker. It's revisionist history at its best -- or maybe worst. It's almost assumed by Acocella and others that this Gospel of Judas is simply fact. It is not. The canon of Scripture which became the New Testament exists as we have it today because of the very fact that these other writings were not reliable and false. In the early centuries of The Way, which is what Christianity was first called, there were plenty of incorrect teachings being written. Many of the New Testament letters were written to correct those errors.I suggest reading this great book on the early movement known as The Way, which became Christianity. Acocella even admits the unreliability of the Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas:
"In fairness, no expert can tell us exactly what the Coptic said. That is not just because of the terrible condition of the codex; even when the words are there, they are often enigmatic."
But there is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other literature of that time. See The Case for Christ, Josh McDowell's books, etc. Acocella's conclusion stands on rather shaky ground. After her analysis, this is all she has to offer:
Hogwash. I have no trouble understanding The Bible. I know what the authors meant. It's not that difficult. So if Shakespeare is old, do you automatically say you can't understand it. That's ridiculous. Anyway, U2 does a great job of getting in Judas's head -- see video.
All this, I believe, is a reaction to the rise of fundamentalism—the idea, Christian and otherwise, that every word of a religion’s founding document should be taken literally. This is a childish notion ...
You are right, Acocella -- it would be childish to take the entire document literally. Some parts are to be taken literally, others not. You might read this book to understand how to read The Bible for all it's worth. Then she says this:Those books, to begin with, are so old that we barely understand what their authors meant.
Hogwash. I have no trouble understanding The Bible. I know what the authors meant. It's not that difficult. So if Shakespeare is old, do you automatically say you can't understand it. That's ridiculous. Anyway, U2 does a great job of getting in Judas's head -- see video.
