Christianity seems to be having a tough week. First this whole “fishapod,” missing link, sort of silver bullet for Darwin naysayers (not that they’ve ever let facts get in the way of a good religious delusion) but now we discover that Judas wasn’t quite the bad guy we might have expected. Seems that Judas betrayed Christ to the Roman authorities at Jesus’ request. A sort of conspiracy for crucifixion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07judas.html
4 comments:
MdH said:
"Christianity seems to be having a tough week. "
Don't arrange the funeral yet...
from the same article:
At least one scholar, James M. Robinson, said the new manuscript did not contain anything likely to change traditional understanding of the Bible." {snip}
"Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," he said.
I am, admittedly biased, and can't even remotely claim to have read the document myself, but so far it hardly sounds like the sort of thing that would cause Christians around the world to toss their Bibles into the trash heap with last season's fashion magazines and Ptolemy's map of the universe...
And even if it did contradict what was traditionally understood, I'd like to think most Christians don't find it necessary to "defend the faith" against every divergent point of view out there...
Oh, and the "fishapod" thing doesn't bother me one bit, either. IMHO a God smart enough to create a universe is certainly smart enough to let it evolve...
CLARIFYING THIS COMMENT
"I'd like to think most Christians don't find it necessary to "defend the faith" against every divergent point of view out there..."
ARGH, that didn't read the way I meant it... let me try again...
I don't personally feel the need to cry "heresy" every time an old manuscript is dug up, or a different perspective is suggested.
more later, i gotta run
Oh...I know that these little bits aren't going to have any significant effect on the relative success of Christianity (especially among the more fundamental). The discovery is more historically interesting than theologically significant...
However, the next time I sit down with the 'Right Reverend Glendon Leroy Horn (my daddy) we're going to have an interesting discussion on the implications of Christ setting up his own betrayal. I'm not entirely sure what it means...but I think it means something.
Progressive/Openminded Christians (who are likely the majority...despite the fact that the freaks shows are alway shouting the loudest) aren't likely to be the target of my ire (everyone's free to believe what they will...even if I've upon reflection found it silly). But I won't suffer fools who insist that the bible is the literally word of their god (not only was it written by humans, but the process of deciding what to include, what to exclude, etc. was a transparently political process) so they can bite me.
Likewise with evolution. If you're not one of the people who believes that the world was literally created in six days & is six thousand & something years old by counting names & multiplying by 40 we'll be OK.
This discovery just emphasizes that at a time when the historic record was much closer/clearer etc. There was still significant variance in the reporting of the life of Christ. If some (not all) Christians would spend more time thinking about humility, & being realistic about doubt, I think they'd be better people, & I know I'd like them better!
Post a Comment