In the last couple of weeks it seems as if Jesus has been taking a beating within the press as a number of "discoveries" and theories about Him and His life are being discussed and debated. The "DaVinci Code", The Gospel of Judas, extra-biblical Gnostic writings and the scientist who claims Jesus did not walk on water, but on ice, have all seemingly cast doubt on the Bible and its account of Jesus. To those who do not know the Biblical record or church history, these movies, books, articles and documentaries can seem very convincing and confusing.
Let me assure you though, the Bible, church history and Jesus Himself are as trustworthy as ever when objectively considered against any so-called evidence that calls all three into question. Gnosticism has been around since the first century A.D. as have a number of theories about Jesus and His death and resurrection. These theories have been refuted every time they have raised their ugly heads and will continue to be in the light of honest and objective inquiry.
The Bible even records one of the false theories of the resurrection in Matthew
28:11-15 - As they were on their way, some of the guard came into the
city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 After the priests had assembled with the elders and agreed on a
plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13 and told them, "Say this, 'His disciples came during the night and stole Him while we were sleeping.' 14
If this reaches the governor's ears, we will deal with him and keep you
out of trouble." 15 So they took the money and did as they were
instructed. And this story has been spread among Jewish people to this
day.
Just to help the discussion along, I have included the entire text to a
well thought out response to The Gospel of Judas by Father Jonathan
Morris. Father Morris was reacting to an article in the NEW YORK TIMES
that seemed to add credence to the Judas story. I really appreciated
how he refuted the article point by point. Here is the article in its
entirety:
The Gospel of Judas
by Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan Central
When in New York there are few things I enjoy
more than browsing the elegant pages of the New York Times while
sipping a cup of a well-brewed coffee. Those pages often make me mad,
but usually make me think. Friday’s edition only made me mad.
I’m referring to the article about the “Gospel of Judas.” It offered
a dumbed-down, ideology-driven report on the ancient text discovered in
Egypt in the 1970’s and recently translated into English by the
National Geographic Society. The text depicts Judas Iscariot, the
traitor, in a good light. Hard to do, you might say. Yes, it is, but
only if you trust authoritative, eyewitness sources like Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John.
The New York Times apparently does not.
For all their purported progressive thinking, one would surmise the
17 centuries separating the Gnostic authors of the “Gospel of Judas”
(self-proclaimed “progressives” of their day) and the editors at the
Times would produce greater evolution of thought. But the paper’s
Friday edition read like the diary of an anti-Christian Gnostic
apologist of the late second century AD. For when it comes to
Christianity, both are incapable of distinguishing between fact and
fiction. Here’s what the article said and here’s why it’s wrong.
(Read the New York Times article - registration required)
NY Times: “An early Christian manuscript,
including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas,
has surfaced after 1,700 years.”
Father J: The "Gospel of Judas" is not an early
Christian manuscript. It belongs to the well-known body of Gnostic
writings condemned by the early Christian community as heretical
(anti-Christian). One of the early Christian Fathers, St. Irenaeus of
Lyons, specifically rebuked the text as “unorthodox.”
NY Times: “The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today.”
Father J: Scholars didn’t report new insights into
the relationship between Judas and Jesus. They reported new insights
into what some second century writers conjectured about the
relationship. The early Christian community discarded those conjectures
because they didn’t match with eyewitness accounts.
NY Times: “The discoveries of Gnostic texts
have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of
beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.”
Father J: This is ridiculous. The hundreds of second
and third century apocryphal texts, of which the “Gospel of Judas” is a
part, have nothing to do with biblical scholarship, since they tell us
nothing about the Bible. Moreover, scholars have known for centuries
that there was a diversity of beliefs and practices in the early
centuries of Christianity. The Christian community sifted through the
contradicting beliefs and classified some as faithful representations
of the teachings of Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and others
as imposters (Gnostic writings, among others).
NY Times: “As the findings have trickled down
to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of
Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but
as a product of historical and political forces that determined which
texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.”
Father J: So much confusion in so few lines! New
generations who don’t believe in the Bible as the Word of God may be
very good people, but they are not Christians. This is not to say the
Bible was dropped from the clouds, or was dictated word for word by
Jesus. Christian theology teaches the canon of Scripture was determined
by human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit. Amazingly, the New York
Times gets things almost exactly backwards. Gnostic texts produced in
the second century stem from a clear historical and political agenda,
whereas the first century canonical Gospels reflect an attempt by
eyewitnesses to put into writing what they had seen and heard.
NY Times: "For that reason, the discoveries
have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas
portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most
favored disciple and willing collaborator."
Father J: The discoveries are troubling only for
believers who give equal value to all ancient writings, no matter their
credibility. At least two of the four Christian Gospels were written by
eyewitnesses. The “Gospel of Judas,” on the other hand, was written
over 120 years after the death of Christ by an author explicitly
condemned as a false teacher by the early Christian community.
NY Times: "At least one scholar said the new
manuscript does not contain anything dramatic that would change or
undermine traditional understanding of the Bible."
Father J: At least one? From my assessment of the
reports that have come out, this has been the norm among all serious
scholars. I hope this last quote from the Times is not a feigned
attempt at unbiased reporting!
There is good reason to accept the authenticity of this text as part
of a body of Gnostic writings, but not as part of early Christian
beliefs. The Times repeatedly insinuates the text represents new
historical data on Jesus and the beliefs of early Christians. This is
completely out of the bounds of professional journalism. As soon as
Gnosticism raised its head, the early Christian community recognized it
as incongruent with what they knew from first-hand sources about Christ
and his teachings.
The New York Times has a tradition of excellence in newsgathering
and reporting dating back to 1851, when Henry Jarvis Raymond founded
the paper. During the Civil War it stood out for its speed and accuracy
in the publishing of eyewitness accounts. Later, during the civil
rights movement, it lent its bully pulpit to those who would bring down
slavery.
But on this story about the foundation of Christianity, the paper’s
unwillingness to trust eyewitness accounts is baffling. I must say, the
silliness of giving the same credibility to the “Gospel of Judas” as to
the Christian Gospels is unworthy of the venerable tradition of my
morning paper. When I read dumbed-down, ideology-driven articles like
this one, the coffee, even good coffee, just doesn’t taste the same.
God bless, Father Jonathan
P.S. In the coming weeks we’ll examine the relationship between
Gnosticism and “The Da Vinci Code,” just in case the NYT doesn’t get it
right.
This article is part of a regular blog hosted by Father Jonathan Morris on FOXNews.com. You can invite new readers by forwarding this URL address: www.foxnews.com/fatherjonathan.
Write to Father Jonathan at fatherjonathan@foxnews.com.
As I sit in my bedroom watching the San Diego Chargers school the Oakland Raiders, I cannot help but think of that infamous day 5 years ago when our great nation was shaken by the worst single terrorist attack in world history. As I'm sure most of you have noticed, the last couple of weeks have seen a saturation of media programming that is memorializing 9/11. It seems everybody has an opinion from every side of the political perspective with some slant that will ultimately have an effect upon some state or national race for office. The single point that is most amazing to me is the simple fact that 5 years later, we have not had another attack upon American soil!
