It’s nice to see Catholic news sources getting the message out there that all the "Gospel of Judas" hype is, well, hype.
HERE’S A GOOD PIECE FROM ZENIT.
AND ANOTHER FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE.
One of the refreshing things about these pieces is how utterly contemptuous the experts being interviewed are about hullabaloo over the Gospel of Judas.
When asked whether the document will "shake Christistianity to its foundations," the Zenit expert replies:
Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity.
From the moment of their appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their incompatibility with the Christian faith.
The CNS expert is even more blunt:
"It was junk then and it is junk now," he said.
In 3506 C.E., a cyborg in Xi’an sold an ancient plastic disk to a cultural antiquities dealer. It was alleged to have come from a place known as the Holy Wood over 1500 years ago.
After much effort, archeologists were able to decode the text encrypted on one side of the disc, and found it to be an ancient Christian religious text that was rejected by the authroities of the time.
It provides proof in the believe that God is actually an old man from Africa, and that his Son was a reluctant participant in what is called by Ancient Christians the Gospel.
Scholars of ancient religions have confirmed that this disc is genuine, and that the account on the disc was widely disseminated in the early 21st century, with many people paying to view it.
The name of this text, found on one side of the ancient disc, was Bruce Almighty.
Just posted this over on Amy’s blog so I thought I would add my commentary here knowinf full well I will get the normal bashing by Tim J. et al but I love God’s gift of free press.
ZENIT asked Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance of the discovery. ”
Father Williams noted:
“The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the way at least two of the canonical Gospels were.”
There appears to be some dispute about this. What two eyewitnesses is he referring to?
Father Williams also noted:
“Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world. ”
There also is some dispute about this (as previously noted on this blog). As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, contemporary Catholic theologian and author noted:
“Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history” . “Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.” Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover).
In my opinion, Schillebeeckx’s statement/ conclusion is one of the most important of the last two millennia as it makes humankind responsible for the history of humankind and voids all Old Testament prophecies.
Without in any way bothering to contradict anything you say, Realist, I would just like to point out that your quotes from Schillebeeckx (at least up to the “therefore”) in no way conflict with or oppose the Fr. Williams quote against which you have putatively pitted them.
Fr. Williams said nothing about predestination or determination in advance. Fr. Schillebeeckx’s inadmissible leaps in logic aside, you’ve basically failed to document your own point. Mind, it’s quite true as you say that “There is some dispute about this” (though what that has to do with anything I can’t imagine). I’m just saying.
You’re such a good comedian, Realist.
Realist,
The bashing only occurs because you keep banging your head against a wall and expecting a different result.
Have a prayerful Holy Week.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The only explanation I can think of for why this is getting so much hype is that it’s the first big discovery of this sort since The DaVinci Code hit it big. People who became aware of non-canonical/heretical/gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Thomas through that book are jumping on this, not aware that serious historians and theologians have been fully aware that such documents exist since day one of the Church and the heresies that sprung up around it.
The problem is perpetuated by organizations like National Geographic who see this as a great opportunity to jump on the DaVinci bandwagon by hyping it up as they have been. As a result, the average person – who is neither equipped to nor interested in examining the serious scholarship concerning texual criticism of ancient texts, the early history of Christianity, etc, but who has read Dan Brown’s book and is convinced that the little “Fact” at the beginning stating that all the talk about secret societies and Vatican cover-ups contained within is true – ends up thinking that a finding like the Gospel of Judas will finally reveal all the dirty little secrets that the Vatican just must be keeping because a fictional work written to make a buck said so.
The best part is that if I try and explain this to someone who doesn’t already recognize the absurdity of the popular opinion on this matter, I get ignored. Needless to say, I’m a little bitter.
“Realist”-
Not sure how you drew your conclusions, but they don’t follow from the text.
God certainly KNOWS the future, but human actions are a result of our free will. And despite the bad choices humans may make, that doesn’t mean that all hope is gone. We can learn from the past to help us do better in the future.
2 eyewitnesses – John and Matthew, who were 2 of the 12 apostles, vs. Luke and Mark, who were (presumably) not eyewitnesses.
Oh, and Realist, that a particular theologian denies that divine omniscience extends to knowledge about the future does not mean the matter is settled. Check out Summa Theologiae part I, article 10, questions 2 and 5 for an alternative view.
Tabloid quality scholarship… sigh.
Dissenters never believe anything is settled doctrine unless and until it is settled in a way they like.
Until then, they always claim it is under dispute… because, well, they dispute it!
If tomorrow an encyclical issued forth stating that sexual behavior had no moral content, you would find that suddenly, all the dissenters would become staunch supporters of Papal Authority, and would walk around wearing t-shirts with “Rome has Spoken” printed in big red letters.
I caught some of this on ABC last night. They decided to only interview the guy who whole-heartedly accepted the Gospel of Judas as truth and thought that it fit perfectly with the other gospels.
ABC=Always Bashing Christians.
Tim J.,
My wife was recently given a letter, written by a “traditionlist” organization, not to long ago about Cardinal Hoyos comments about the SSPX. It kept saying over and over “Rome has spoken”.
It was amazing to me that when the pope publicly acknowledged that five named clerics had excommunicated themselves by a schismatic act “Rome had not spoken” was all I heard from this group. Yet a cardinal says what this group wanted to hear and from the rooftops “We win, Rome has spoken”.
I guess some groups think that the authority of the hierarcy comes only from the we-know-we-are-right laity when and if they approve of what is being said and not from God.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
If tomorrow an encyclical issued forth stating that sexual behavior had no moral content, you would find that suddenly, all the dissenters would become staunch supporters of Papal Authority
There’d then be those who’d dissent insisting that because the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra, that the Pope must have made a mistake, or that his words are not being understood correctly.
The CNS expert is even more blunt: “It was junk then and it is junk now,” he said.
CNS expert, an authority on junk.
Mike,
You noted: “2 eyewitnesses – John and Matthew, who were 2 of the 12 apostles, vs. Luke and Mark, who were (presumably) not eyewitnesses. ”
Raymond Brown, one of the Pope’s favorite biblical scholars, notes: “Date of Matthew’s Gospel, 80-90 AD, Author by tradition, St. Matthew the Apostle,
Probable Author, A Greek Speaker who know Aramaic or Hebrew and was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry.” (An Introduction to the New Testament, hardback, Doubleday, NY, 1997, p. 172
For a discussion about the author of John’s Gospel see the same book, p. 334 and p. 369. Conclusion, someone named John but not the Apostle but possibly an eyewitness but more likely a redactor of the eyewitness’s writings.
And:
“The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus’ ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same – 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. ”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Inocencio,
More thoughts that continue “bang in my head”:
Schillebeeckx’s commentary was made to Dutch Catholics after they started to blame God for the destruction of their North Sea Walls and the great loss of life after the destruction. Sound familiar?
His words, “Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.” Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover) would be quite appropriate for those that blame God for Katrina don’t you think?
Strange how people who are significantly stupid to live next to the sea and below sea level blame God when walls and levees fail.
So, Realist, I assume you agree that the historicity of this new “Gospel of Judas” is bunk as well?
AN STRAIGHTFORWARDLY ORTHODOX JESUIT (who is not Fr. Pacwa) !!!!!!!!!??
It is a sign of the apocalypse!!! Run for your very lives!!!
Seriously, remember the good old days when heresy like this meant that Christians died horrible deaths by the bus-load? You only find that kind of martyrdom in Communist and Muslim countries now.
I think it is a real sign of the failure of the Church and Christians in general that in this country Christ himself bears the brunt of this assault.
I would rather be mauled by lions than to stand idly by while mainstream organizations like National Geographic and Doubleday create a whole cottage industry out of blaspheming Our Lord.
I cannot stand the Christ is suffering without more people stepping up to receive ridicule at His noble side.
The gospel of Judas was the big front page story in Canada’s largest circulation newspaper today.
http://tinyurl.com/h4wj4
Ok Realist,
One more time real slow.
S c h i l l e b e e c k x h a s n o a u t h o r i t y…n o n e…
You accept him because he says what you want to hear. You quote everyone you give authority to and ignore clear God-given Church authority and teaching. And of course you will accuse me of bashing you because I quote the Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and Magisterium.
“That all these things should come to pass, I say, our Teacher foretold, He who is both Son and Apostle of God the Father of all and the Ruler, Jesus Christ; from whom also we have the name of Christians. Whence we become more assured of all the things He taught us, since whatever He beforehand foretold should come to pass, is seen in fact coming to pass; and this is the work of God, to tell of a thing before it happens, and as it was foretold so to show it happening.” St. Justin Martyr – First Apology 155 A.D.
Deut. 18:18 – He will be raised up as a prophet – Matt. 21:11, Luke 7:16; John 6:14; 7:40 – Jesus is identified as this prophet.
Isaiah 61:1-2 – the Spirit of the Lord is upon Him – Luke 4:21 – Jesus says that He has fulfilled this prophecy.
CCC 2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Hello, Realist!
Unless his context led in a different direction, Schillebeeckx was weirdly wrong. For one thing, the Catechism says (paragraph 600) “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.”
I’ve always thought that the whole problem of prdestination and free will derives from “If God knows what I’m gonna do next Tuesday, then I’m not free to choose what I’ll do next Tuesday.” But this implicitly assumes that God experiences time sequentially, as we do — “now it’s 2006, it used to be 2005, soon it’ll be 2007 …”
Actually, God doesn’t “remember” or “foresee” anything. It’s all happening live, now, from His perspective. God is no more locked into being exclusively in 2006 than He’s locked into being excluseively in Chicago. He’s in all times and all spaces at once. The moment of me typing is no more “now” to Him than the moment of my birth — or of my death. He’s looking at the whole show at once, and observing each free choice we make as we make it.
It’s crazy to imagine, as Schillebeeckx apparently did, that God can be surprised by what happens “next”!
Realist,
“Raymond Brown, one of the Pope’s favorite biblical scholars, notes: “Date of Matthew’s Gospel, 80-90 AD, Author by tradition, St. Matthew the Apostle.”
Since all studied scholars on the matter consider Matthew’s Gospel to be the first written, it may have been written within about 20 years of the events of the crucifixion since it came before Luke’s Gospel which was then followed by Luke’s Book of Acts, and the Book of Acts was completed before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
John’s Gospel was followed by the Revelation which implied that the temple was still standing when it was written. Therefore both it and the Gospel of John were completed before A.D. 70.
‘…in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.’
Do you consider yourself responsible for what happens to people you see on the TV news? Why should God be any more responsible for causing every minute event of the future he has already seen your freewill create?
‘For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.’
That’s an interesting way of putting it. Perhaps he misspoke for, in a manner of speaking, one could describe all eternity as already being history to God. Whereas for us, it is the future that holds the adventure.
Realist,
God is constant.
Time is the measure of change.
Thus God is not in time, He created it and is not held ransom by it.
Think Bayeux Tapestry and one person looking at it.
The desire to put God in time and say he doesn’t know what will happen next comes from the “problem of evil.” This is also a relevant topic concerning all the evil surrounding the da Vinci Code and the “Gospel of Judas”. Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?
Answer 1: it is a great mystery
Answer 2: God gives men and angels free will and does not prevent them from excersising it, even to their own harm
Answer 3: to bring about a greater good.
Answer 3.5: He takes it into account in His plan for history, and remains totally the Master of history.
If one accepts these truths, all will be made clear. There is even a certain beauty to it, if you have eyes to see (wich is diffucult if you are caught up in the evil and suffering yourself)
Though perhaps not all can grasp the beauty of the genre, or undertand its subtleties, I might recommend Realist read J. R. R. Tolkein’s The Silmarillion with an eye to its theological reflections to gain a deep down understanding of this point of view. Often the intelect can not grasp something when the will rebels. A few quotes:
“Then Ilúvatar [God] spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur [angels/gods] and mightiest among them is Melkor [Lucifer]; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'”
“And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: ‘Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire, nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwë [king of the Ainur and lord of the sky], thy friend, whom thou lovest.’
Then Ulmo answered: ‘Truly, Water is become now fairer than my heart imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in all my music was contained the falling of the rain. I will seek Manwë, that he and I may make melodies for ever to thy delight!'”
“But at that last word of Fëanor [a rebellious elf]: that at the least the Noldor [the followers of Fëanor] should do deeds to live in song for ever, he [Manwë] raised his head, as one that hears a voice far off, and he said ‘So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru [God, Ilúvatar] spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä [the Universe], and evil yet be good to have been.’
But Mandos [guardian of the dead] said: ‘And yet remain evil. To me shall Fëanor come soon.’
Tim J.,
You asked, “So, Realist, I assume you agree that the historicity of this new “Gospel of Judas” is bunk as well?”
As with all Gospels, the later it is written the more unreliable and the more it is embellished.
The Gospel of Judas does have some verifying facts if you want to “Crossanize” it. First it verifies that Jesus was an actual person. Many still don’t believe this but see Crossan’s list of first and second century historic biblical documents. These plus the publications of Josephus (as noted by Crossan in his The Historical Jesus) , Jesus lived and was crucified. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
The Gospel of Judas would be placed apparently in Crossan’s FOURTH STRATUM [120-150 CE/AD] along with the Didache etc.
The attestations of the Crucifixion as per Crossan: http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf 5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2. 6. (the Gospel of Judas?)
Crossan’s analysis of the conduct of Judas was already rated as non-historic so the story as told in the Gospel of Judas would definitely be rated the same. Being a single attestation from the Fourth Statum would also result in the same rating.
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
267-. Judas Promised Money: (1a) Mark 14:10-11 = Matt 26:14-16 = Luke 22:3-6, (1b) John 13:27a
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb267.html
269±. Jesus Arrested: (1a) Mark 14:43-50 = Matt 26:47-56 = Luke 22:47-53, (1b) John 18:1-12,20
380-. Suicide of Judas: (1) Matt 27:3-10, (2) Acts1:15-20a;
489-. Matthias Replaces Judas: (1) Acts
1:20b-26 http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb489.html
Realist,
Please stop banging you head against the rock, please.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Regarding God being outside of time, the analogy that finally helped me get a grip on it was this: read Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut (and you should, anyway). Consider Vonnegut’s description of how the Tralfamadorians see time. That’s how it works for God (to the best of our knowledge).
Inocencio,
I crush my rocks with another one of God’s great gifts, i.e. common sense. When you get time, you might want to add some to your current take on our religion. You will be surprised how easy it is to wipe away the embellishments to see the historic truth of it all.
Still waiting for the second coming!!
The Realist
Realist,
The Catholic Church believes Sacred Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God. Regardless of who the human author may have been, the primary author is the Holy Spirit, which means that all that Scripture proposes as true is true. More profoundly, the entire Bible, being indeed the word of God, can be compressed quite simply into the single Eternal Word of God, Jesus.
We also believe that Sacred Tradition, guarded by and taught by the Church, is the revelation of God, part of which is the cannon of Sacred Scriptures, and doctrines that are totally contrary to the “Gospel of Judas.”
The theological virtue of Faith is belief in God, in all that He has said, and in all that His Church proposes as true.
If you do not have this faith, which is a free gift from God, ask for it. If you will not ask for it, I fear I must conclude you have hardend your heart against God.
If you receive and accept this faith, you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say. Faith is not opposed to reason, but unlike the true Faith those who rely on reason can make mistakes.
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.”
J. R. Stoodley,
Well stated.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Realist-
Again, you keep saying “our religion” as if we have the same one.
Your views are neither Catholic nor Christian.
Your common sense is uncommon nonsense.
If you receive and accept this faith, you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say.
Looking at the numerous and lengthy responses to Realist might make one wonder who’s received and accepted this faith.
“Looking at the numerous and lengthy responses to Realist might make one wonder who’s received and accepted this faith.”
Make one wonder? Possibly. Two or more? Not likely. Answers to questions and objections cannot be given by those who do not have answers, and would not be withheld by those who do. If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith. To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.
Fr. O’Really,
If you are indead a Catholic priest, your guidance could be quite valuable if you would be more specific about the matter. Your comment is stimulating, though. It is something to meditate on. Might one defend the faith in an attempt to strengthen one’s own faith? Perhaps, but let’s not discredit all who for one reason or another chose like me to contribute to this discussion with such a simple cutting comment. “Judge not, and you will not be judged.”
INDEED a Catholic priest
Sorry, I should start checking the spelling of these.
If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith.
Realist offered his answers too.
To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.
That is what I said.
It looks to me like the No-Name troll is now pretending to be a priest. That strikes me as rudeness.
“If I speak in human and angelic tounges, but do not have love, I am an resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing….Love never fails. If there are prohpecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away….At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
I think all of us are Christians, so let’s not forget what it is all about.
Gee, and I thought that the “Gospel of Judas” was the training manual for the USCCB, the Union of Stupendously Cretinous and Corrupt Bishops…. 😉
” ‘If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith.’
Realist offered his answers too.”
Realist has answers to his own faith, not Christianity. The dissagreements he raises deserve answers from those who do embrace Christianity.
” ‘To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.’
That is what I said.”
Not really. It is one thing to question the faith of someone you dissagree with. Who wouldn’t do that? It would be quite another for a priest to question the faith of those who defend Christianity with reasoned answers. Any real priest would understand the difference. “If you must judge, judge righteously.” No, I guess it’s not any more relevant than when you quoted the first part.
Father O’Really is up there with Ima Butt as a prank name.
This I figured as well, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. A quick Google search revieled that O’Really is apparently a real name. Since he has refused to give up his habit of short biting comments, I suspect you are right, Bill912 and Eileen R. Perhaps Realist in disguise?
Let’s not wory about it too much though. See my above post, quoting 2 Corinthians.
Well Cary, I offered the observation as I posted it, not as some have apparently opted to interpret it. If one of the faith looks upon Realist as a “faithless modern scholar” or some such, then as another poster suggested, “you will not have to worry about what” he says. Yet we see post after post, lengthy ones at that, taking aim at what Realist says, banging heads, if you will. I found in it a moment of reflection on the meaning of faith.
I’m not interested in derogatory questioning or characterization of anyone’s faith, nor have I, nor am I interested in head banging with you. If anyone is banging his head, may he get the message.
P.S. I’m quite real. Good day everyone.
Fr. O’Really,
Most of our post to sir Realist our not to “bash” or “bang heads” with him but to answers his silly questions for others who read his comments.
If I had stumbled upon a blog like this 15 years ago and nobody answered him I would assume he had made a valid point because of my ignorance.
Though I continue to pray for his conversion I answer sir Realist questions not to convince him but just in case some anonymous reader had the same question.
God bless you for your vocation Fr. O’Really may I ask what feast day and year you were ordained a Catholic priest?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In his century, Irenee of Lyon already referred to the Gospel of Judas as a forgery ….
Fr. O’Really
I apologize about calling into question your reality. I was expecting something like your last post if you were for real. Still, I regreted my last post almost as soon as I posted it.
Perhaps my writing “you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say” was also a mistake. I did not mean to imply that all modern scholars are faithless, nor that Realist was one of them. Rather, I just meant when a “scholar” or whoever else comes up with a theory that is in fact contrary to the Catholic Faith one need not worry about figuring out whether it is true or not. I wrote this to Realist and any readers who might not have thought about it this way, since no one was bringing up the essential point of the role of faith in the matter of what Scripture is and how reliable it is. Realist certainly seems to have faith of some kind, but exactly what, or whether it is sufficient for salvation, is impossible for me to know. That is why I spoke about his faith or any hardening of heart in a hypothetical manner.
None of us knows the heart or the faith of another, especially on a forum like this. I write this because you keep suggesting that I lack strong faith because I (for the first time in my life I might add) engaged in any kind of debate with someone who advances theories which include an unorthodox approach to Scripture. You are right that one with strong faith will not, as I said, worry too much about these things. At the same time it is warrentless to presume a series of long posts means I or Inocencio or any other has a desire to convince himself he is right by bashing Realist.
I have no such desire, nor do I want to “bash my head” against you, and since you have put me off to this discussion I will cease posting here barring significant new developmnets.
Those who post long responses to Realist are in fact those with the obedience of faith that comes from and proves strong and true faith. Peter commanded that Christ’s people always be ready to defend the hope that is within them, and these posters are doing just that. Indeed, to fail to defend the truth when one is able would be to be guilty of the cooperation in sin with he who speaks falsely by means of silence.
Hmmm, mistaking me for a Catholic priest!! That has made my week!!! And thank you Father O’Really for the kind words.
And an added comment about the current discussion on the Gospel of Judas. “AARPy” common sense and the common sense woven throughout most of the parchments/fabric of the OT, NT and earlier texts immediately vitiate the suicide claims of this “Gospel”.
“Since all studied scholars on the matter consider Matthew’s Gospel to be the first written,…”
Dear Cary,
You need to read more modern RC scripture scholars. Virtually no reasonably current scripture scholars take that position. Mark was first (65-70) and was copied by Matthew and Luke.
Patrick, read Warren Carroll’s “History of Christemdom, Part I”. Many modern scripture scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, around the year 42, and later translated it into Greek. Beside, Acts was written in the early 60s, and his Gospel must be earlier.
I’m sorry, I am still doubtful about our esteemed “Fr. O’Really”.
He said he was “quite real”.
That doesn’t mean he is a real priest. Not that it matters.
We are all “quite real”.
I understand what you were trying to say (assumed-for -the-moment) Father, but I find it strange that you would call into question the necessity of rebutting anti-Christian viewpoints when there are possibly many people reading who may be taken in by such nonsense.
Realist has lurked on the edge of troll-dome here for some time, throwing the occasional bomb. His comments are generally obtuse, giddily contrarian and bolstered only with appeals to fashionably modernistic sophistry.
I think it would be a bloody shame to allow such opinions to remain unchallenged, particularly since he comes here as a visitor, knowing full well that this is a traditional, orthodox Catholic blog.
Are there not enough heterodox, modernist blogs out there to keep such people busy impressing one another with their own cleverness?
“His” means St. Luke. (proofread, proofread, proofread!)
Tim J,
Hey, I thought this was Jimmy Akin’s blog? And Jimmy typically is open to all kinds of new, neat, spicy things from chili to dancing to strange geological formations. And I find a lot of what is in the books of Crossan, Armstrong, Borg, Brown et al to be quite spicy in terms of a new look at the historic Jesus. Apparently you do too but with a more conservative “take”.
You need to read more modern RC scripture scholars. Virtually no reasonably current scripture scholars take that position. Mark was first (65-70) and was copied by Matthew and Luke.
May I suggest you read the Catholic encyclopedia then move onto to early Christian writers quoted in the article. Most modern scholars seek merely to be modern and ignore Sacred Tradition and Catholic tradition.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
If anyone is interested in reading an article about supposed Markan “primacy” EWTN has a good one.
Kulturkampf and the Gospel
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
As I write, it is a little before two o’clock in the afternoon of Palm Sunday here in San Diego with no clouds in the sky.
By tonight I shall have either presided or assisted at all six of our parish church’s Palm Sunday Masses.
I shall have heard several times today the verse from the HOLY Gospel according to MARK in which God the Son Himself says of Judas:
~
Several points: I just got done reading “The Authenticity of the Gospels” by Maisie Ward. In that book, the author gathered evidence showing that the first three gospels were all written by 62 AD. The author cited to sources such as Papias, Iranaeus, Ignatius and Clement to demonstrate this.
As far as the validity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being accepted as the accepted gospels of the early church, St. Justin Martyr wrote as early 133 defending them, and not other versions, against Trypho. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache which were written even earlier specifically have references from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Iranaeus and Ignatius wrote defending these four gospels.
It’s funny how modern scholars ignore the first scholars in attempting to date the gospels. Papias, Iranaeus and Eusebuis all tell how they came into being. Matthew was written first because he was leaving the Jewish community he was preaching to and wanted leave a written legacy of Jesus’ teachings. Mark was Peter’s interpreter in Rome and wrote down what Peter preached to them. Luke wrote down what Paul preached. Finally, John wrote down his Gospel at the urging of his disciples and many of the early bishops while he was still Ephesus. It is very different from the others because John wanted to fill in some of the gaps in the other three gospels.
Another interesting point is the fact that the early pagan and Jewish philosophers and critics all attacked the four gospels as the teaching of the Church instead of the other various and Gnostic versions that were extant.
Perhaps the problem with modern biblical scholars
is that they don’t approach the Scriptures as the “Word of God” and don’t approach them prayerfully. Instead, they want to make a name for themselves in the world by coming up with their own theories of what gospels are authentic and when they were written~most probably to promote sales of a book they are writing or to justify their salary at some university.
By the way, when did Judas find the time to learn Coptic or Greek and write his “gospel” between betraying Jesus to the Pharisees and the Scribes and hanging himself?
BTW, Iranaeus’s “Against the Heresies”, iii, 1 written in 165 AD could arguably be used to contradict Protestant appologists who argue that Peter was never in Rome, considering the fact that his information would have probably come from St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John himself.
“Hey, I thought this was Jimmy Akin’s blog? And Jimmy typically is open to all kinds of new, neat, spicy things”
I’m sure Jimmy is open to all kinds of new things, as am I.
But there are different ways of being “open minded”.
Some people are open like a net that will catch some things, and let others go…
And some are open like a sewer, that will let in any foul thing.
Tim J.,
The writings/conclusions of Crossan, Armstrong, Borg, Brown et al are hardly foul smelling just because they disagree with the religious principles you and I were taught. They have reviewed documents we did know even existed. I am sure you agree with the statement, “we are what we read”.
Your reading list is posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html.
I have read and have access to the CC (as drilled into by my Franciscan teachers) and the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Ditto for EWTN’s library.
Still waiting for the Vatican judgement on “limbo”. Maybe they will address Crossan et al’s conclusions about the historic Jesus when they finish
“I am sure you agree with the statement, “we are what we read”.”
Nope.
That would hardly be fair to the masses of faithful Catholics through the ages who couldn’t read.
Some mighty saints, there were, that never read anything.
Catholic Eucharistic theology confirms that we are what we eat.
Realist and others:
If you go here you can read a two-part article by David Marshall entitled “Is the Gospel a myth? A literary Argument for the Historicity and Uniqueness of the Gospels.”
He has expanded this article into a book (which I have not read yet) called “Why the Jesus Seminar Can’t Find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could: A Populist Defense of the Gospels.”
Ryan,
Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus.
Jesus Seminar:
“Well, Jesus was just zis guy, you know?”
“Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus.”
Realist, how do you know this? Others, with a view towards the evidence, have read the same things and are not so convinced. We could argue one view or the other back and forth all day without ever getting beyond speculation. What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?
“What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you?” It makes for a small, limited god that a finite human mind can fully comprehend. Arius and Nestorius conceived of such a god. The Gnostics felt themselves to be “insiders” who had hidden knowledge that the rabble didn’t have. Nothing new. Just the same old, tired heresies that puff up the pride and ego.
Realist, I think there was a technical error with your last comment, typepad dropped some parts of it.
After “Au Contraire!!,” typepad dropped the part where you responded to the points raised in the article to which you declared your contrary-ness.
After “The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus,” typepad dropped the part where you provided a link to your evidence.
😉
Ryan,
There was no dropping of the evidence since the evidence was previously presented on this blog. For a rather complete net “citing” see below:
“Guess you might say that there has been too much information hidden from the “peasants in the pew” for the last 2000 years. When one reviews the information now available to us peasants, many questions arise as to authencity of various parts of the OT and NT. And there are too many contemporary scholars who by using very rationale techniques have rightly questioned many aspects of both.
Much of this information is “Internet free”. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb077.html
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
http://southerncrossreview.org/14/pagels.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/jhcbody.html
http://www.religion-online.org/
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
http://www.ntgateway.com/
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm ”
Have a great Easter!!!
“Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus.”
I have several advanced degrees, including one from Yale Divinity School and have been trained not only in exegesis, theology, new and old testament, church history, etc., but also philosophy, epecially philosophy of language, and logic. I found, as did many other trained scholars, the Jesus Seminar to be far, far, FAR more heat than light. A couple of good thoughts overwhelmed by philsophical and theological howlers, an embarrassment to the writers.
There is NO chance the full body of the magisterium will except this stuff any time soon…or later.
PS Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.
This kind of thing was specifically held up to me in Div school as an embrrassing misunderstanding of what foreknowledge is, and convinced most of us that Schillebeeckx had huge gaps in his knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology. To foreknow, as many have argued eloquently above, is not to be a puppeteer. I’ma parent. Ninety-nine times out of 100 I can foretell how one of my kids would react to an event or statement. If I were God it would be 100 times out of 100. But I do not pull their strings. I also like the Bayeux tapestry inage above. The thought of God trapped inside time, His own creation, is silly.
Did anyone see the History Channel segment on the Gospel of Judas last night? The “experts” were all talking about it like it was authentic. Tells you something about the History Channel…
In Philly, The National Geographic Channel had a one hour show on the Gospel of Judas. The authencity was about when it was written not about how true the Gospel is.
NW Clerk,
I assume you have read Father Schillebeeckx’s books?
“What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?”–Realist
“It makes for a small, limited god that a finite human mind can fully comprehend.” -bill912
Realist, you never answered the question. Your web links to the evidence don’t speak to plausibility. Much of what is presented it a matter of debate. Why should we take this so seriously? I really want to understand where you are coming from.
Did bill912 really answer for you?
“What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?”–Realist
Sorry, this quote was from Jim and addressed to Realist.
One thing that would shed a great deal of light on the Jesus of History nonsense would be to spend some time seriously analyzing the analyzers. Maybe on a psychiatrist’s couch.
What drives them to WANT to find some Jesus that is different from the Jesus of the Christian faith?
Why are they so desperate to prove that the Gospels are not reliable history?
Why do they desire to ascribe more authority to some modern scholar’s after dinner cocktail napkin scribblings than to all the accumulated work of Popes and Councils?
They are running from something. I wonder what they would find if they took a hard look at their own internal motivations?
Tim J,
The answers you seek can be found in books such as Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, The Search for Paul and in Armstrong’s A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“The answers you seek can be found in books such as Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, The Search for Paul and in Armstrong’s A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
In other words Realist,
“You’ll have go see for yourself, I can’t really explain why you should read all those books. I can only make vague pronouncements about finding answers.”
I now know what bill912 and Tim J think about your motives but I still want to know what you really think. If you post another non-answer, I may have to assume you don’t have one or they did it for you and you aren’t willing to own it.
Realist,
Your god is a finite spiritual being. Your “savior” is a 2000 year old dead man. How can you not find that depressing? Is your association with the Catholic church so pathologically imprinted as a result of your childhood that you cannot conceive of an identity outside of the institution? What does your god offer you? What does your Christ offer you? If you were truly a free-thinker and empirical rationalist (as you so desire to be), you would have left this whole argument long ago. As it stands, you appear as superstitious as those you claim rational superiority over, but it in a uniquely pathetic way. No one who truly believes in the Catholic church or the Catholic god cares about your god or your Christ. Neither does anyone outside of the church. It is only the frustrated little Catholic schoolchildren grown up who end up spending their lives obsessing over concepts and beings that they don’t believe in but cannot bring themselves to disown. It is profoundly sad. Perhaps you should figure out why you care about the historical Jesus at all before you read any more books about him.
Again, we are what we read. If the faith hammered into our heads in childhood is strong, we should not be afraid to read any book to include the books referenced above.
With respect to what I basically believe, see Crossan and Watts’ book, Who Is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus. The book is well written, easy to read, concise (144 pp) and inexpensive (~$7.00) used.
“With respect to what I basically believe, see Crossan and Watts’ book, Who Is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus.”
Sir Realist, by his own admission, is a believer of Crossanity or CrossINsanity never sure of the spelling.
As Catholics, Realist, you just have to look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for what we believe. It is online for free. And I just picked up the Compendium today if you want something concise.
Have prayerful Holy Week.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Realist,
You can recite what I believe, the Nicene creed.
Realist,
You can’t even give a simple statement regarding what you believe? You don’t seem to understand that for Christians, the historical Jesus is the divine being who has interacted with and influenced those in the Christian sects throughout history, not some first century Cynic wanderer who may or may not have existed. If I were interested in reading books about ancient philosophers or mystery cults, I would do so. No one is impressed (believer or nonbeliever) with your ability to post a makeshift bibliography as an answer to a direct question. Unless you can articulate a simple sentence regarding the contents of any of these books, I have no reason to believe that you have read any of them. If you have read them and are still unable to make a simple statement of your beliefs regarding the figures of the Christian Trinity and their relationship to the Christian sects throughout history, then I would have to seriously question the point of your having read in the first place.
Britishy Narrator Voice:
And thus, with his reductionist cynicism having been turned against him, Realist wandered, wounded and reduced, into the primeval wood from whence he came to lick his mortally cynical wounds and wait for a time when he can adopt yet another persona (other than anon or Realist) and once again terrorize the townsfolk.
In the meantime, though, with the troll vanquished, the villagers all gathered around and had a wonderful party. They laughed, they drank, and they played tetherball.
THE END