Sorry, vison!!!!!!!!
That was wrong of me. Thank you for responding so gently.
The Gospel of Judas
Cerin, I believe that you are mistakenly attributing an accusation of anti-Semitism against people here, and mistakenly attributing an accusation of obduracy against all Christians. I am fairly certain that the reverse is what was intended. It is Christians in general who have been historically anti-Semitic and the people here whom Imp considered obdurate.
Yes, Voronwë is one of the persons who has interpreted the narrative that way; yes, he is making assumptions about what the narrative means to some of the people here.
Let me restate the quote of mine to which you are referring, so that the emphasis will be understood.
Voronwë is not making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. We know how this narrative was interpreted and used by the churches until very recently.
I did not say here (meaning this board), and neither did he. The fact that you, here, are not those churches does not mean that we cannot state the fact that these events happened and they are the cause of our distress.
Either that, or he is saying that because of the fact that some persons who are not here have interpreted the narrative in a certain way, we who are here and have not, should not discuss that aspect of our beliefs here.
I am saying that the Christians who post here must also do so with sensitivity to the fact that the beliefs they are promoting have been used in the past to persecute others.
When these beliefs are discussed, you too must understand that people who suffered because of them are going to demand that a great deal of care be taken in how they are expressed. If that is not the purpose of this forum - to provide such care and sensitivity - then I don’t know what is.
The only thing I can make of Voronwë's response is that he does believe the problem arises with the Biblical narrative itself, and believes that it defames Jews and that anyone stating belief in it defames Jews.
Voronwë has said absolutely nothing about the Biblical account. He said that Jews also deserve protection within this forum, in response to your complaint about Imp’s use of the word ‘obduracy.’ Since he made no comment whatsover about the gospels and neither did she, it is impossible to guess what either of them might believe about the text. Though it may be impolite to refer to a particular person as obdurate, that is not an attack on Christianity.
'Obdurate' doesn't describe the nature of a subject; it describes an attitude or state of mind.
Yes. I was being circumspect and polite. I believe what she meant was that some of the posts revealed obduracy on the part of the posters.
We believe Jesus was put to death because it was God's plan to save us from our sin. It doesn't matter to us who wanted him dead or who killed him. It doesn't matter.
Cerin, I believe that this is the sort of comment that some might consider ‘obdurate.’ What you believe today, at the end of long discussion and analysis, is not the issue at all. The issue ... and I specifically referred to ‘what pops into our head first’ and gave the moon as an example ... the issue is the set of presumptions that underlies our shared (European) culture and why Jews react so negatively to some statements while those who make the statements do not intend them provocatively and are not even aware that they might be received this way.
You were dumbfounded to hear the interpretation given to Mel Gibson’s movie. I was terrified. And what terrified me the most was to hear the Christ-Killer thesis re-asserted over and over again on TORC, by modern Christians, in U.S. society, today. And rejoicing that this movie would be shown every year now during Passion Week, the week reserved during the medieval Christianity to which Gibson subscribes for pogroms against the Jews. Christians by the busload would be taken to this movie by their churches, every year, and reminded by the infallible script of Mel Gibson (which God helped write) that the Jews did kill Jesus because, by God, they did.
I heard this not 500 years ago, but two years ago. We cannot just jump over it and say that no Jew on this board should speak about it because the Christians on this board do not subscribe to it. Part of the purpose of this forum is for all of us to share what such events mean to us.
If that is what she meant and it is deemed acceptable, then I think our by-laws should specify that Christians or certain aspects of Christian belief are not protected against targeted remarks.
It would be better to take this up in the Naith, I believe. But so as not to make it seem that I am carrying the discussion off to a secret place
I will say that there are two Christian beliefs likely to hit the hot button for Jews because they are the ones that have traditionally been used to justify killing Jews. Both of them have come up here (!) - one in the hell thread and the other one in this thread - and those are the two times when we wrangled over protection of Jewish sensibility versus protection of Christian’s professing their beliefs.
The first is the idea that Christians are the real Jews, the true inheritors of the Old Testament. The second is the idea that the Jews were primarily reponsible for the death of Jesus.
I will not protect Christians on the board from hearing that these ideas are hot buttons because of their historic association with persecution, but I will enforce courtesy and respect on all sides.
Jn
Yes, Voronwë is one of the persons who has interpreted the narrative that way; yes, he is making assumptions about what the narrative means to some of the people here.
Let me restate the quote of mine to which you are referring, so that the emphasis will be understood.
Voronwë is not making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. We know how this narrative was interpreted and used by the churches until very recently.
I did not say here (meaning this board), and neither did he. The fact that you, here, are not those churches does not mean that we cannot state the fact that these events happened and they are the cause of our distress.
Either that, or he is saying that because of the fact that some persons who are not here have interpreted the narrative in a certain way, we who are here and have not, should not discuss that aspect of our beliefs here.
I am saying that the Christians who post here must also do so with sensitivity to the fact that the beliefs they are promoting have been used in the past to persecute others.
When these beliefs are discussed, you too must understand that people who suffered because of them are going to demand that a great deal of care be taken in how they are expressed. If that is not the purpose of this forum - to provide such care and sensitivity - then I don’t know what is.
The only thing I can make of Voronwë's response is that he does believe the problem arises with the Biblical narrative itself, and believes that it defames Jews and that anyone stating belief in it defames Jews.
Voronwë has said absolutely nothing about the Biblical account. He said that Jews also deserve protection within this forum, in response to your complaint about Imp’s use of the word ‘obduracy.’ Since he made no comment whatsover about the gospels and neither did she, it is impossible to guess what either of them might believe about the text. Though it may be impolite to refer to a particular person as obdurate, that is not an attack on Christianity.
'Obdurate' doesn't describe the nature of a subject; it describes an attitude or state of mind.
Yes. I was being circumspect and polite. I believe what she meant was that some of the posts revealed obduracy on the part of the posters.
We believe Jesus was put to death because it was God's plan to save us from our sin. It doesn't matter to us who wanted him dead or who killed him. It doesn't matter.
Cerin, I believe that this is the sort of comment that some might consider ‘obdurate.’ What you believe today, at the end of long discussion and analysis, is not the issue at all. The issue ... and I specifically referred to ‘what pops into our head first’ and gave the moon as an example ... the issue is the set of presumptions that underlies our shared (European) culture and why Jews react so negatively to some statements while those who make the statements do not intend them provocatively and are not even aware that they might be received this way.
You were dumbfounded to hear the interpretation given to Mel Gibson’s movie. I was terrified. And what terrified me the most was to hear the Christ-Killer thesis re-asserted over and over again on TORC, by modern Christians, in U.S. society, today. And rejoicing that this movie would be shown every year now during Passion Week, the week reserved during the medieval Christianity to which Gibson subscribes for pogroms against the Jews. Christians by the busload would be taken to this movie by their churches, every year, and reminded by the infallible script of Mel Gibson (which God helped write) that the Jews did kill Jesus because, by God, they did.
I heard this not 500 years ago, but two years ago. We cannot just jump over it and say that no Jew on this board should speak about it because the Christians on this board do not subscribe to it. Part of the purpose of this forum is for all of us to share what such events mean to us.
If that is what she meant and it is deemed acceptable, then I think our by-laws should specify that Christians or certain aspects of Christian belief are not protected against targeted remarks.
It would be better to take this up in the Naith, I believe. But so as not to make it seem that I am carrying the discussion off to a secret place
I will say that there are two Christian beliefs likely to hit the hot button for Jews because they are the ones that have traditionally been used to justify killing Jews. Both of them have come up here (!) - one in the hell thread and the other one in this thread - and those are the two times when we wrangled over protection of Jewish sensibility versus protection of Christian’s professing their beliefs. The first is the idea that Christians are the real Jews, the true inheritors of the Old Testament. The second is the idea that the Jews were primarily reponsible for the death of Jesus.
I will not protect Christians on the board from hearing that these ideas are hot buttons because of their historic association with persecution, but I will enforce courtesy and respect on all sides.
Again, I think this should be addressed in the Naith, but generally, I think that why groups of people perceive one another a certain way would be legitimate. A thread title like the one you quoted, that took Christian or Jewish obduracy as a given, would not be acceptable. But if the question were, “Why do Christians view Jewish beliefs as obdurate,” and it were started by a Christian with an eye to self-examination, I would not find that objectionable. Delicate, yes, but not out of bounds.Cerin wrote:Jnyusa wrote:Why people of one religion might consider people of another religion to be obdurate in their views is also legitimate discussion.
According to our TE sticky, I do not believe such a discussion would appropriately take place in this forum, and I do not believe it could be presented in terms of discussing the group as a whole (according to our by-laws), but rather, it would have to focus on the particular people they were discussing with.
In other words, I do not believe our by-laws would allow for a thread titled, 'Why are Christians obdurate in their views?'
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Edit: Voronwë subsequently explained to me privately that I had misunderstood him and that what I wrote below did not accurately reflect his views. I'm so sorry, Voronwë. I know how terrible it feels when people misrepresent what you've said (I've complained often enough about it myself!).
Jn, we won't know what Imp meant unless and until she comes here and tells us (sorry to keep talking about you rather than to you, Imp).
I do not believe I'm mistaking an accusation of anti-Semitism against people here.
What I'm trying to deal with is Voronwë's post. What I can figure out from what he said is this:
- Stating a belief in the biblical narrative of Jesus' death is defamatory (insulting, offensive) to Jews because that narrative is in and of itself offensive to Jews.
- Imp had a right (is justified) in making a disparaging remark targeting a group of people based on their believing that narrative, because that belief is offensive to her.
At this point, our by-laws prohibit making remarks that target a certain group. Now perhaps that isn't what Imp was doing, in which case this whole branch of the discussion is moot.
So what I'm trying to clarify is this: being personally offended by someone doing what we are told we may do here (state our religious beliefs) doesn't justify our doing what we are told we may not do here (insult a group based on their religious beliefs).
I do understand this.
I don't think it's impossible to guess, given the context of their remarks.
Imp was lauding your patience in the face of the obduracy of those who refuse to accept your view of the events being discussed. Voronwë was defending Imp referring to those who refuse to accept your view of events, as obdurate. That's my guess, anyway.
And they're perfectly entitled to consider it that. But they may not use their opinion of my comment as an excuse to call a group of people obdurate based on a religious belief (on this messageboard).
Jn, we won't know what Imp meant unless and until she comes here and tells us (sorry to keep talking about you rather than to you, Imp).
I do not believe I'm mistaking an accusation of anti-Semitism against people here.
What I'm trying to deal with is Voronwë's post. What I can figure out from what he said is this:
- Stating a belief in the biblical narrative of Jesus' death is defamatory (insulting, offensive) to Jews because that narrative is in and of itself offensive to Jews.
- Imp had a right (is justified) in making a disparaging remark targeting a group of people based on their believing that narrative, because that belief is offensive to her.
At this point, our by-laws prohibit making remarks that target a certain group. Now perhaps that isn't what Imp was doing, in which case this whole branch of the discussion is moot.
So what I'm trying to clarify is this: being personally offended by someone doing what we are told we may do here (state our religious beliefs) doesn't justify our doing what we are told we may not do here (insult a group based on their religious beliefs).
I'm afraid I don't see that as a legitimate interpretation of what Imp said. She was lauding your patience in dealing with the obdurate people here in this discussion.It is Christians in general who have been historically anti-Semitic and the people here whom Imp considered obdurate.
Absolutely. I'm not objecting to your doing that. I'm objecting to a comment that seems to call a group of people obdurate for holding to a religious belief that the poster does not share and which she finds offensive.The fact that you, here, are not those churches does not mean that we cannot state the fact that these events happened and they are the cause of our distress.
When these beliefs are discussed, you too must understand that people who suffered because of them are going to demand that a great deal of care be taken in how they are expressed. If that is not the purpose of this forum - to provide such care and sensitivity - then I don’t know what is.
I do understand this.
Exactly. Imp wasn't expressing a religious belief when she used that term, she was lauding you for dealing with the obduracy expressed in this thread. I don't know what she might have been referring to except to the people who demonstrate 'obduracy' by insisting on holding to their religious beliefs rather than abandoning them in the face of your arguments.He said that Jews also deserve protection within this forum, in response to your complaint about Imp’s use of the word ‘obduracy.’
Since he made no comment whatsover about the gospels and neither did she, it is impossible to guess what either of them might believe about the text.
I don't think it's impossible to guess, given the context of their remarks.
Imp was lauding your patience in the face of the obduracy of those who refuse to accept your view of the events being discussed. Voronwë was defending Imp referring to those who refuse to accept your view of events, as obdurate. That's my guess, anyway.
Of course it isn't an attack on Christianity to refer to a person as obdurate. But I believe it is a violation of our by-laws to imply that a group of people is obdurate because they believe the biblical narrative of the death of Christ.Though it may be impolite to refer to a particular person as obdurate, that is not an attack on Christianity.
Yes, on the part of that group of posters identified by their belief in the biblical narrative.I believe what she meant was that some of the posts revealed obduracy on the part of the posters.
Cerin, I believe that this is the sort of comment that some might consider ‘obdurate.’
And they're perfectly entitled to consider it that. But they may not use their opinion of my comment as an excuse to call a group of people obdurate based on a religious belief (on this messageboard).
I'm not suggesting no one should speak about it. I'm suggesting that when Christians state their belief in the biblical narrative, and that offends our Jewish members, that they nevertheless don't have the right to imply that a group of people is obdurate based on the fact that they believe as they will, and not as you will.We cannot just jump over it and say that no Jew on this board should speak about it because the Christians on this board do not subscribe to it.
I would hope not.I will not protect Christians on the board from hearing that these ideas are hot buttons because of their historic association with persecution, but I will enforce courtesy and respect on all sides.
Last edited by Cerin on Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cerin, as you say, Imp has not returned to explain herself so it is a moot point.
To answer your direct question, it would not be OK here (imo) to call another poster obdurate because they persisted in a particular religious belief.
That is not how I interpreted Imp's remark, but I interpreted the evolution of the whole discussion differently than you did. So I'm not sure which end of this to grab hold of.
Yes, on the part of that group of posters identified by their belief in the biblical narrative.
No, on the part of those posters who interpreted my first remark to Whistler as an attack on the gospels themselves.
This does not obviate the harshness of the adjective, which is a different issue, but I did not for a moment take Imp to mean that Christians were obdurate for believing what they believe. I took her to mean that the people on the board were obdurate in their interpretation of what I had said, because it took three pages before people understood me (if they ever really did and weren't just being polite).
Jn
To answer your direct question, it would not be OK here (imo) to call another poster obdurate because they persisted in a particular religious belief.
That is not how I interpreted Imp's remark, but I interpreted the evolution of the whole discussion differently than you did. So I'm not sure which end of this to grab hold of.
Yes, on the part of that group of posters identified by their belief in the biblical narrative.
No, on the part of those posters who interpreted my first remark to Whistler as an attack on the gospels themselves.
This does not obviate the harshness of the adjective, which is a different issue, but I did not for a moment take Imp to mean that Christians were obdurate for believing what they believe. I took her to mean that the people on the board were obdurate in their interpretation of what I had said, because it took three pages before people understood me (if they ever really did and weren't just being polite).
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Thanks, Jn. I think that clears it up pretty well.
And I just want to apologize again, Imp, for any awkwardness you may experience because of our continuing to discuss your remark in your absence.
I don't take or intend any personal umbrage in this, but did feel a rather compelling need to try and work out this particular point of misunderstanding.
And I just want to apologize again, Imp, for any awkwardness you may experience because of our continuing to discuss your remark in your absence.
I don't take or intend any personal umbrage in this, but did feel a rather compelling need to try and work out this particular point of misunderstanding.
Why are we suddenly talking about by-laws? Can't we all get along without having to be strait-jacketed? If the charter/naith/by-laws are going to be produced every time someone has a disagreement this is going to be a pretty miserable place in which to post.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
Alatar, Cerin and I went way off-topic for the thread, for which I apologize. You're right that we should not be discussing by-laws in a thread about something else. It was a bit hard to drop, though, because the issue in question emerged from this thread. Anyway, we're done now.
Jn
oops, cross posted.
Jn
oops, cross posted.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Well, I feel badly about taking this thread so far off topic, so let me try once again to bring it back to the topic of the Judas gospel.
I was hoping that someone could illuminate all of us a bit with regard to gnosticism. This system does not really seem compatible with Christianity to me - and obviously the church fathers did not think so either - but the writers of the Nag Hammadi documents and these other documents just released obviously did consider themselves both Gnostic and Christian. So ... it's an intriguing combination.
Also, has anyone else here read Umberto Eco's Island of the Day Before? The story is built around a Judas myth from the 17th century (iirc) that sitting on the international date line is an island where it is always 'the day before' - never today, you know? And Judas is supposedly chained there, and his eternal punishment is for it to be forever the day that he betrayed Jesus, never the following day so that he could be allowed to die.
I find it interesting that myths grow up around characters thought to be irredeemable, or at least unredeemed, like Cain and Judas.
Jn
I was hoping that someone could illuminate all of us a bit with regard to gnosticism. This system does not really seem compatible with Christianity to me - and obviously the church fathers did not think so either - but the writers of the Nag Hammadi documents and these other documents just released obviously did consider themselves both Gnostic and Christian. So ... it's an intriguing combination.
Also, has anyone else here read Umberto Eco's Island of the Day Before? The story is built around a Judas myth from the 17th century (iirc) that sitting on the international date line is an island where it is always 'the day before' - never today, you know? And Judas is supposedly chained there, and his eternal punishment is for it to be forever the day that he betrayed Jesus, never the following day so that he could be allowed to die.
I find it interesting that myths grow up around characters thought to be irredeemable, or at least unredeemed, like Cain and Judas.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Meneltarma
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:38 pm
Melly: Who would have thought that man was capable of something so tedious?
I did start it once and couldn't get through it. The second time I persevered and felt quite rewarded by the end, though the cruelty of that era and the way science and magic and superstition were mixed together was really rather disturbing.
vison, let me ask you a different question! Was it you who said you were no fan of Hesse in the other thread? I'm wondering if you read Demian. In that book he interprets the Mark of Cain to be a symbol for people rejected by society for whatever reason, not just because of a crime, but also because they are too far ahead of their times, or have different sensibility or morality from that of their age. It fit very nicely with the 'anti-hero' fad of the 1960s, which might account for Hesse's increase in popularity during that decade.
Jn
I did start it once and couldn't get through it. The second time I persevered and felt quite rewarded by the end, though the cruelty of that era and the way science and magic and superstition were mixed together was really rather disturbing.
vison, let me ask you a different question! Was it you who said you were no fan of Hesse in the other thread? I'm wondering if you read Demian. In that book he interprets the Mark of Cain to be a symbol for people rejected by society for whatever reason, not just because of a crime, but also because they are too far ahead of their times, or have different sensibility or morality from that of their age. It fit very nicely with the 'anti-hero' fad of the 1960s, which might account for Hesse's increase in popularity during that decade.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I have not read Demian.
I think the mark of Cain is reserved for fratricides, or at least for murder. (If all men are brothers, then any homicide is fratricide, I guess.) I've read a number of stories over the years in which a character bears the mark of Cain. One that sticks in my mind is by John O'Hara, of all people, and if I can find the book the story is in, I will post the title. It was one of O'Hara's collections of short stories. (A little Osgiliation: I think O'Hara is due for rehabilitation.)
To take the view that a man might bear that mark for a "different sensibility" is quite ignoring the whole point of the story, IMHO. Cain killed his brother. And then he lied about it. Two pretty major crimes in any moral system, right?
I have my bible in front of me, actually, having been boning up on Job, but I'm going to re-read what the scholars in King James' version of Genesis had to say.
After I get some work done. The Government of Canada has these silly rules about when you have to file your income tax! It doesn't care much about higher matters.
I think the mark of Cain is reserved for fratricides, or at least for murder. (If all men are brothers, then any homicide is fratricide, I guess.) I've read a number of stories over the years in which a character bears the mark of Cain. One that sticks in my mind is by John O'Hara, of all people, and if I can find the book the story is in, I will post the title. It was one of O'Hara's collections of short stories. (A little Osgiliation: I think O'Hara is due for rehabilitation.)
To take the view that a man might bear that mark for a "different sensibility" is quite ignoring the whole point of the story, IMHO. Cain killed his brother. And then he lied about it. Two pretty major crimes in any moral system, right?
I have my bible in front of me, actually, having been boning up on Job, but I'm going to re-read what the scholars in King James' version of Genesis had to say.
After I get some work done. The Government of Canada has these silly rules about when you have to file your income tax! It doesn't care much about higher matters.
Dig deeper.
You know, that is something it has in common with the Government of the United States, your silly neighbor to the southvison wrote: The Government of Canada has these silly rules about when you have to file your income tax! It doesn't care much about higher matters.
. To have tax day and Good Friday so close together has some strange symbolism to it (death and taxes), somewhat akin to last year, where Good Friday and the destruction of the Ring fell together.
Needless to say, I always do my taxes on the last possible day. This year, I am going to try to get them done a few days early....
I read Damian (and all of Siddartha but the last chapter). All I remember of it was that the girl was called 'Beatrice' and this was Clearly!Significant, but I had no idea why
. Since then, I've figured out who Dante is .Alatar, I rather like the portrayal of Judas in Jesus Christ, Superstar. I think he is conflicted, and they include plenty of ambiguity to his motives and thoughts. What he does (and how he feels about it) makes sense. I just think their portrayal of Christ is lousy
. Judas can have his doubts about whether or not Jesus is God....but Jesus should be pretty clear on that point, himself!Some interesting info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Mith, I think the portrayal of Jesus is quite strong, depending on the production. They show his anguish as a man but also his divinity. Obviously, the turning point is in Gethsemane, as it should be, when he accepts his cross and all that means:
I only want to say
If there is a way
Take this cup away from me
For I don't want to taste its poison
Feel it burn me,
I have changed I'm not as sure
As when we started
Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired
Listen surely I've exceeded Expectations
Tried for three years
Seems like thirty
Could you ask as much
From any other man?
But if I die
See the saga through
And do the things you ask of me
Let them hate me, hit me, hurt me
Nail me to their tree
I'd want to know my God
I'd want to see my God
Why I should die
Would I be more noticed
Than I ever was before?
Would the things I've said and done
Matter any more?
I'd have to know my Lord
I'd have to see my Lord
If I die what will be my reward?
Why, why should I die?
Oh, why should I die?
Can you show me now
That I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little
Of your omnipresent brain
Show me there's a reason
For your wanting me to die
You're far too keen on where and how
But not so hot on why
Alright I'll die!
Just watch me die!
Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired
After all I've tried for three years
Seems like ninety
Why then am I scared
To finish what I started
...What you started
I didn't start it
God thy will is hard
But you hold every card
I will drink your cup of poison
Nail me to your cross and break me
Bleed me, beat me
Kill me, take me now
Before I change my mind
Edited Lyrics to remove some repetition and for clarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Mith, I think the portrayal of Jesus is quite strong, depending on the production. They show his anguish as a man but also his divinity. Obviously, the turning point is in Gethsemane, as it should be, when he accepts his cross and all that means:
I only want to say
If there is a way
Take this cup away from me
For I don't want to taste its poison
Feel it burn me,
I have changed I'm not as sure
As when we started
Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired
Listen surely I've exceeded Expectations
Tried for three years
Seems like thirty
Could you ask as much
From any other man?
But if I die
See the saga through
And do the things you ask of me
Let them hate me, hit me, hurt me
Nail me to their tree
I'd want to know my God
I'd want to see my God
Why I should die
Would I be more noticed
Than I ever was before?
Would the things I've said and done
Matter any more?
I'd have to know my Lord
I'd have to see my Lord
If I die what will be my reward?
Why, why should I die?
Oh, why should I die?
Can you show me now
That I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little
Of your omnipresent brain
Show me there's a reason
For your wanting me to die
You're far too keen on where and how
But not so hot on why
Alright I'll die!
Just watch me die!
Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired
After all I've tried for three years
Seems like ninety
Why then am I scared
To finish what I started
...What you started
I didn't start it
God thy will is hard
But you hold every card
I will drink your cup of poison
Nail me to your cross and break me
Bleed me, beat me
Kill me, take me now
Before I change my mind
Edited Lyrics to remove some repetition and for clarity
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
I am so sorry to just post a duplicate of what I said on TORC, but everyone and their cousin has been asking me about this, and I've only had a few days to learn about it, myself:
No, this is not a hoax. The ink is old, the handwritting is old, the papyrus has been carbon dated, and even a specialist would have difficulty inventing passages like: "A great angel, the enlightend divine Autogenes, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants...." (Gospel of Judas, manuscript page 48, somewhere in the middle)
According to the translators, this gospel dates between 100 and 180 AD -- after 100 because it seem to know the passage in Acts where the disciples pick a replacement for Judas and before 180 because the Church Father Irenaeus mentions it by name in Against Heresies. (However, his details of its contents aren't quite right. When we have gnostic sources to compare their accounts to, the Church Fathers and heresiologists varry between 'somewhat accurate' and 'not at all'. )
Our physical manuscript of the Gospel of Judas carbon dates to later, but that's true of all gospel manuscripts -- none of them is an original copy.
Let me suggest an exercise: read the Gospel of Judas (especially the beginning and the end) and make a list of what this text knows about Jesus' last week. Is there a garden? A cross? Do you think it knows about the other gospels' accounts?
You can read the gospel here:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... fJudas.pdf
The original language, Coptic, is here:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... fJudas.pdf
(The dots, brackets, and notation of "vacat" (Latin for "empty") are all indications of how difficult and fragmentary the manuscript was, even after all the great care and effort to put it in the right order and preserve it. )
According to Dr. Meyer's essay in the The Gospel of Judas by Bart Ehrman, Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, Gregor Wurst the Gospel of Judas is gnostic (very much so!), and an early example of the type of Gnosticism that revered Seth (of Genesis, not Egypt) as a spiritual ancestor. Like certain other books in the Nag Hammdi Library, Meyer suspects the Gospel of Judas started out as a work of Jewish mysticism that was later Christianized (i.e. the names of Jesus and Judas were added, as were certain Christian ideas and elements -- the original dialogue would have probably featured an unnamed "Savior" and his disciple. ) I know this sounds like an astonishing idea, but we can see this kind of process at work in the Nag Hammadi Library, which kindly preserved the original http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/eugn.html , and the later Christianized version http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.htmlof one of its books.
Not all gnostic works started life this way -- and just because a work has gnostic ideas does not mean it may not also remember history. (No more than the presence of orthodox theology means a work is or isn't historical. ) Theology and history are two different things; nearly every branch of early Christianity claimed to go back to one of the early followers of Jesus and accused every other branch of having it flat wrong. The work of teasing these factors apart and looking for history in the non-New Testament gospels is in its infancy (although I believe Dr. King has done some work on it in her Gospel of Mary of Magdala. ) A lot of work remains to be done for even specialists to understand the Gospel of Judas -- the part that tickles me is that it seems a lot closer to canonical gospels than most gnostic works, and much easier to place in the web of relationships (and arguments) between the many, many early Christian groups. (One of the essays in the book, I think Ehrman's, has one of the best concise descriptions of the era I've read. )
I'm excited by all of this, too -- and I've been trying to understand it as quickly as I possibly can. (The last time a new text http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html was published was quite recently, which is not a common thing in this field -- one usually has to wait half a century, or so (the last two discoveries came in waves around 1900 and 1945... )
And, yes, I'd be happy to try and field any other questions about the Gospel of Judas, but first try the folks who know it better than anyone:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... t_faq.html
-Kushana
No, this is not a hoax. The ink is old, the handwritting is old, the papyrus has been carbon dated, and even a specialist would have difficulty inventing passages like: "A great angel, the enlightend divine Autogenes, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants...." (Gospel of Judas, manuscript page 48, somewhere in the middle)
According to the translators, this gospel dates between 100 and 180 AD -- after 100 because it seem to know the passage in Acts where the disciples pick a replacement for Judas and before 180 because the Church Father Irenaeus mentions it by name in Against Heresies. (However, his details of its contents aren't quite right. When we have gnostic sources to compare their accounts to, the Church Fathers and heresiologists varry between 'somewhat accurate' and 'not at all'. )
Our physical manuscript of the Gospel of Judas carbon dates to later, but that's true of all gospel manuscripts -- none of them is an original copy.
Let me suggest an exercise: read the Gospel of Judas (especially the beginning and the end) and make a list of what this text knows about Jesus' last week. Is there a garden? A cross? Do you think it knows about the other gospels' accounts?
You can read the gospel here:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... fJudas.pdf
The original language, Coptic, is here:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... fJudas.pdf
(The dots, brackets, and notation of "vacat" (Latin for "empty") are all indications of how difficult and fragmentary the manuscript was, even after all the great care and effort to put it in the right order and preserve it. )
According to Dr. Meyer's essay in the The Gospel of Judas by Bart Ehrman, Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, Gregor Wurst the Gospel of Judas is gnostic (very much so!), and an early example of the type of Gnosticism that revered Seth (of Genesis, not Egypt) as a spiritual ancestor. Like certain other books in the Nag Hammdi Library, Meyer suspects the Gospel of Judas started out as a work of Jewish mysticism that was later Christianized (i.e. the names of Jesus and Judas were added, as were certain Christian ideas and elements -- the original dialogue would have probably featured an unnamed "Savior" and his disciple. ) I know this sounds like an astonishing idea, but we can see this kind of process at work in the Nag Hammadi Library, which kindly preserved the original http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/eugn.html , and the later Christianized version http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.htmlof one of its books.
Not all gnostic works started life this way -- and just because a work has gnostic ideas does not mean it may not also remember history. (No more than the presence of orthodox theology means a work is or isn't historical. ) Theology and history are two different things; nearly every branch of early Christianity claimed to go back to one of the early followers of Jesus and accused every other branch of having it flat wrong. The work of teasing these factors apart and looking for history in the non-New Testament gospels is in its infancy (although I believe Dr. King has done some work on it in her Gospel of Mary of Magdala. ) A lot of work remains to be done for even specialists to understand the Gospel of Judas -- the part that tickles me is that it seems a lot closer to canonical gospels than most gnostic works, and much easier to place in the web of relationships (and arguments) between the many, many early Christian groups. (One of the essays in the book, I think Ehrman's, has one of the best concise descriptions of the era I've read. )
I'm excited by all of this, too -- and I've been trying to understand it as quickly as I possibly can. (The last time a new text http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html was published was quite recently, which is not a common thing in this field -- one usually has to wait half a century, or so (the last two discoveries came in waves around 1900 and 1945... )
And, yes, I'd be happy to try and field any other questions about the Gospel of Judas, but first try the folks who know it better than anyone:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... t_faq.html
-Kushana
