Nothing less than sensational, National Geographic announced this week the recovery of the Gospel of Judas. Much has been made about the claim that Jesus discussed with Judas the betrayal before it happened. Though that's exciting news, perhaps even more interesting is what such a discovery means.
The New Testament itself is made up of four gospels, referred to as the canonical gospels. However, there are other gospels out there -- eight of them, at least -- written by the likes of Peter, Mary Magdelene, the Egyptians, the Hebrews, Philip, James, Thomas and, of course, Judas. All of them have varying degrees of departure from the main storyline and, in fact, the canonical gospels themselves have disagreements. So, why the 1:2 split?
Well, that's another story best told by experts a lot smarter than me. My humble observation is, unfortunately, an obvious one; there were A LOT of people writing about Jesus. In fact, outside of the gospels there was an entire cottage industry around Jesus as a subject and some of these writings painted a very different picture from the Bible. So, who got it right?
The fact is, a bunch of people who never knew Jesus got together and decided which gospels would make the cut and which ones would not, creating a virtual lock out on other interpretations. Two thousand years later, we're practically unquestioning of the integrity in that decision despite the fact that we live in a time where we accept that politics and personal agendas regularly distort what we know about the important figures and events of our time. Have we simply evolved into a less reputable lot or, are we simply deluding ourselves about the integrity of those who came before us?
For the sake of wrapping up this article I'm going to venture out on a branch and say we're deluding ourselves. Everything we know about our collective history is subject to, well, subjectivity. The ancient Mayans were characterized as a blood thirsty bunch who were exterminated by the bloodthirsty Spanish who happened to write about it from their perspective. Thankfully, the Spanish were themselves routed by the bloodthirsty English who were routed by the Americans that did some routing of their own indigenous population and finally, set the historical record straight -- the Spanish were the "bad" ones.
The inherent risk of believing what you're told about history is that you never really know if you're getting the whole picture. There is needed, for lack of a better word, an increasing degree of faith the farther back you go. And therein lies the problem -- the word of God is one thing, the word of humans, well, that's something altogether... fallible. That's why, I think, the more diversity in your sources, the better chance you have of understanding what really happened.
For example, when I first read Ernest Hemingway I revered the man of adventure and quiet passions but, as I discovered in later years the words "bigot" and "racist" applied as well. But those discoveries didn't diminish my interest. In fact, the more I found out, the more human he became. And the more human he became, the more I felt I understood him. So, I've got to think that the less people try to get Jesus "right," the greater chance they'll have of getting to know him.
And since THIS is the definitive last word -- no comments, please...
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
I just want to ask a question. Since others were writing, and other philosophers did write at the time, why do you think Jesus didn't write his own testament?
You know, maybe he did... and they haven't found it yet. My guess is that there wasn't a whole lot of time between his rise to notoriety and the crucifixion. If he did write something, it would have been a bunch of notes and memoirs if that.
Remember, no one really knows who wrote any of the gospels and they were all written outside of the Roman occupation. Additionally, they were all written well after all of the first hand witnesses were dead. You just gotta shake your head at the fact that one of the most influential stories in the history of the world wouldn't even get a hearing in today's courts due to lack of evidence!
Agreed!
G-d replied and so did Jesus, but all three disappeared before any of the journalists could ask questions.
Jesus said "listen to Buddha" and Buddha said "listen to Jesus"... then G-d intervened and said... hey how come no one is listening to me? to which Buddha replied "Hey Nietzsche told us you were dead!"
To which G-d replied "no that's what I told him to get him off my back, poor guy believes everything I say." To which Buddha responds "You are quite the paradox confusing Nietzsche like that. No wonder no one listens to you!"
G-d: "Well you're one to talk lotus boy."
Thanks, WM for finding that quotable and Jack, I don't know. I think there are facts and then there are truths. The facts we can somewhat know but the truth? I mean, there are so many layers. Was Jesus divine? Is there really such a thing? Was he gentle or was he a revolutionary? I think each person has to sort of take the bones of fact and then apply their own truth to re-create Jesus in the flesh for themselves. So... I guess I feel that a true collective truth could never be had. So glad you took the time to comment. Made me think more on this.
Jeff L -- what the hell? But I liked the story missives like narrative haikus. What's with the hyphen in God?
Gary, I've seen that book and have been pondering getting it. I love that sort of light being cast on the context because it just makes the whole mystery that much more real and interesting. Yeah, I guess they didn't teach much reading and writing at carpenter's school... excellent point!
Thanks all!