<div>The main problem with this text (tho right on the money on most of its points) is the assumption that the Gnostics were not Christian. The gnostics themselves certainly thought so. </div> <div> </div> <div>jim</div> <div> </div> <div> Paul <paul_@igc.org> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Sorry to come to this late, but it does fit 'talk of the day'. The media coverage of the 'Gospel of Judas' have left me perplexed. I am no expert but there are points that seem obviously newsworthy and relevant to both theological meaning of the find and even to current political events are oddly overlooked. 1) First I noticed a side point: the 'Gospel' was obviously a looted artifact smuggled out of Egypt in the 1980's when Egyptian and international law clearly and actively prohibited this. Only weeks later did a paper point out, buried in the "Science" section, that the dealer/"owner" (who has prior convictions for art smuggling) tried to sell it underground privately and failed - international law is starting to be taken seriously on this point. But the thief then found a willing accomplice - National Geographic (!) who has milked the manuscripts for the millions it was worth and who has circumvented the law and defeated international treaties designed to protect ancient artifacts and the rights of the Egyptian people. It turns out that the other accomplice is a Swiss foundation solely owned by the thieve's Swiss lawyer. <HTTP: 13judas.html?_r="6&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=login" science 13 04 2006 www.nytimes.com> It was left to a local Long Island paper (the codex was smuggled first to Switzerland and then Long Island) to note, in passing, that the thieves nearly obliterated the priceless manuscript in their negligence. The ruined scraps are being returned to the Coptic Museum in Cairo - minus the millions made. <HTTP: ny-lijudas0408,0,6927488.story?track="mostemailedlink" longisland local news www.newsday.com> 2) Second, and fundamentally, I was struck by the lack of accurate historical and cultural context in the media coverage. The texts are put forward as if they might have circulated among orthodox Christians, that they *could* have been in the canon (had they been written earlier, etc) or that the admirers of the Gospel of Judas could have been in reasonable dialogue with those who decided the canon. But the author and admirers of this Gospel were Gnostics and were not just considered non-mainstream or even heretics -- they were considered NON-Christians. This was a principle objective of the Council of Nicea and its Nicene Creed (325 AD). The Gnostics were persecuted by the (then Christian) Roman Empire and annihilated. At the theological level the conflict involved the dual nature of Christ (physical and spiritual); at the cultural level it involved the clash of Eastern-Middle Eastern spirituality (with the denigration of the physical) versus with Greco-Roman rationality (and great esteem for the physical form). At the political level this clash involved the future of the conquered eastern peoples in a highly centralized authoritarian Roman/Byzantine Empire that was declining. (I posted more on this six months ago: <HTTP: 022493.html Week-of-Mon-20051010 lbo-talk pipermail mailman.lbo-talk.org> The Gnostics rejected the dual nature of Christ (denigrating the physical which they considered lowly). In their Gospel of Judas the very "service" Jesus requests of Judas is *freeing* him from his physical nature - a lofty act in the Gnostic view. This is the core of the Gospel (if reports are accurate, the full text has NOT been released AFAIK). Obviously for the reverse reasons, orthodox Christianity must utterly reject such a Gospel as *unChristian* and the Roman/Byzantine Empire will not tolerate this sort of Middle Eastern cultural diversity within the Empire. The Gospel of Judas is a strong ideological and cultural statement and it was one that the Christianity of the canon or the Empire would only eradicate. It is not clear to me why the media coverage has been weak on these points. Is it possible that National Geographic simply wants to make the largest possible hype and so presents "their" new find as closer to today's Christianity? Or perhaps the mainstream media is trying to walk a very touchy tightrope: neither appearing un-ecumenical by stressing that Gnostics are not considered Christians, nor highlighting the intolerance and socio-political nature of early Christianity in formulating its basic beliefs? 3) Finally there is the historical and political relevance today that seems overlooked. Much of what was to become the "Middle East" was then a Christian place sharing much history, common rulers and a somewhat common culture with Mediterranean Europe. The Bishopric of Alexandria was second only to Rome in importance to Christianity. They were partly driven to alliance with Islam and a break with southern Europe by the intolerance (and exploitation) of Rome and Byzantium over hundreds of years. The "East's" effort to express its cultural and religious difference from Europe did not end with the extermination of the Gnostics. The "East" then tried a compromise formula: accepting the Dual Nature of Christ but proposing a single form (spiritual not physical). This was rejected by the Empire in the Council of Chalcedon 125 years later and the Easterners were declared heretics (but not non-Christians). They then formed the Coptic Egyptian, Coptic Syrian and Armenian national churches who faced ongoing repression and occasional threats of extermination. Later, other groups of easterners proposed further watered-down compromises: a Dual Nature, a Dual Form but somewhat separate entities. The Empire was implacable with them too and these groups split into the Maronite, Assyrian, East Syrian and Persian national churches and faced their trial by persecution. With their backs to the wall, and fearing the same fate as the Gnostics, these desparate churches, living in divided communities and ruled by a declining and economically exploitative Empire, turned to a new rising power to free them from Byzantium: Islam. The support they gave to the Islamic armies from the dessert played an important role in facilitating the conquest of their lands. And indeed for more than the next 1000 years Islamic rulers largely offered a tolerance to all Christian Churches (and Jewish communities) that was far beyond what was available from Christian Europe. The Gospel of Judas and the treatment of its proponents was part of a larger picture that helped create today's geographical split between the West and the Middle East. It also helped form the Middle East's image of the West as an intolerant and violent region (and later we get to the Crusades). I gather tomorrow evening we will hear National Geographic's version of events on TV. Paul ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </BLOCKQUOTE> Jim Davis Ozark Bioregion, USA http://anarchistozarks.blogspot.com/ http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=141735 http://shops.half.ebay.com/brothershak_W0QQmZbooks