FLS: Blaming Judas
Professor Olga Arans writes in this morning's Free Lance-Star, playing the apologist for Judas and the gnostic gospels:The apocryphal Gospel of Judas does not essentially alter the established tradition. It merely shifts the moral accent from blame to praise. In doing so, however, it despoils the story of its profound personal ambiguity and the emotional intensity. Sure, if the Gospel of Judas were an authentic gospel -- we all might believe that...
The historical credence the gnostic gospel offers is little more than a curiosity and nothing more. The Gospel of Judas is akin to someone re-writing the role of Benedict Arnold from traitor to hero some 300 years after the fact.
Very little of the text deals with Judas' relationship to Christ. Most of it speaks of gnostic spiritualism, as if the idea Judas was an active and noble participant in the betrayal of Christ is such an interesting idea (sales pitch) as to ask the reader to buy into the beliefs of the gnostic author.
I find it amazing most people are going off of what the press and pundits say is in the gnostic text, while most haven't read the text itself. It's weird, and certainly no synthesis between Christian theology and gnostic philosophy.
|
 |
W. N. Dayley 
1 Comments:
In that regard, the Gospel of Judas should, therefore, be allowed to be read and judged -- as should all the apocryphal texts -- on its own merits.
Post a Comment
Home