Aging Disgracefully

The other track explores the content of the gospel itself. In it Judas emerges not as a betrayor to be condemned for all ages, but as the disciple closest to Jesus and most capable of understanding his kingdom. At the last supper, Jesus calls him aside and says to him

you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

In other words, Judas was simply doing the bidding of Jesus. He was chosen for this task because he alone among the disciples was worthy because he was capable of seeing the secrets of Jesus's kingdom. Jesus revealed these to Judas by way of compensation for the fact that his name would be despised for all time for turning Jesus in to the Roman and Jewish authorities, which was the major downside to his accepting that gig.

I guess I should mention two other tracks, one which tells the story of how the early Church "streamlined" the new testament down to a core set of Gospels, and the other which tells us of the role of the Judas story as told in those core gospels in fomenting anti-Semitic violence over the centuries.

And now for my reactions:

1. This should have been two documentaries and not one. The first and second tracks deserve separate treatment, in part because they are so complex and in part because only one of the two will interest most viewers. I personally could care less about the work of restorers (how much do you want to know about the econometric methods I would use to conclude that we can't afford the Medicare drug benefit?). I also felt that in terms of dramatic engagement the first track is better tackled by stories like "The Red Violin". Nor is the first track particularly enlightening: anyone familiar with the sordid stories behind alot of the looted "Nazi" art knows that the art and antiquities world is rather murky (and that is putting it charitably).

2. The documentary approaches the emergence of this codex as a shocking new development that will "shatter" the faith of some. That is a bit of over-dramatization on their part. Put simply, this gospel is not news (not if you have spent any time learning about the early history of Christianity). This interpretation of Judas's actions is one that I heard in religion classes growing up Catholic, and in the more advanced of those classes I learned of the existence of the "other gospels" that Irenaeus of Lyons tried to have supressed, including a Gospel of Judas essentially along the lines of the one discovered. (I have always marvelled at the fact that the Catholic church, which generally forbids inquiry, taught me the early history of Christianity in such an open and matter-of-fact manner.) And Irenaeus is not some obscure weirdo only a learned and equally weird few would know about. He was a central figure in the early church (I would argue that he played a big role in establishing many aspects of the Catholic church's identity that continue to this day) and perhaps the main reason the New Testament rests on history's most famous boy band, comprised of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And in any case he lived at a central place and time in history: if you were a Christian in classical times, Lyon in the second half of the second century AD was a very special, and harrowing, time and place. Even if you haven't heard of Irenaeus, most of you who grew up Catholic (and many, many others who subscribe to other Christian traditions) must have heard the story of the martyrdom of Blandina in Lyon in 177 AD.

3. The documentary is part of an increasingly popular effort to point out an awkward truth that most modern Christian sects, Catholicism included, have generally done their level best to avoid acknowledging: the modern New Testament (whichever version you subscribe to) is not, from a historical standpoint, Jesus version 1.0. Try more like Jesus version 18.2 (even within its own vein of Christian tradition). Pushing this hackneyed analogy further, there were many competing early Christian operating systems and file formats, even in a particular time and place (eg Gnosticism). There were many different traditions surrounding the Messiah in the early Christian landscape, and the current New Testament emerged as the widely adopted version of events in part because its promoters successfully sold their product while suppressing the competition. That doesn't make it better or more true: it makes it the best marketed version. I think a little perspective on this point by some of the more "strict constructionist" modern fundamentalist Christians would go a long way toward improving our world and advancing some kind of serious semblance of a fellowship of man, at least in the Christian-dominated corners of our planet. On the other hand, I also admit that, as is so often the case when an othrodoxy is successfully intellectually shattered, this revelation has also opened the door to a great deal of silliness that actually makes you almost (almost) long for the days of doctrinal narrowness (people, the Priory of Sion is a complete fiction: there is no real evidence behind either The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail or The DaVinci Code). The realization that the world is complex and that there was more than one good faith version of events should not elevate patent con jobs to respectability.

4. I felt the attempts by some Christian figures to dismiss the Gospel of Judas in one fashion or another ("I don't neeeeeed more than what the four gospels provide" one particularly small and self-righteous pastor proclaimed) were so silly and intellectually bankrupt that they make it painfully obvious that, in fact, they really are not sure what lies at the core of their faith and in any case, whatever it is, that faith hangs by a thread. When I was still religious (and probably on some level I still am) I struggled long with the question of what was at the core of the New Testament: what was the real message? For instance, anyone even remotely familiar with Rome, the Roman outlook on the larger world and its governance, the place of Judea within the Roman world, the kind of men Rome sent to govern difficult places like Judea, Pilate's place in Roman society and his reputation, etc. will have a very time accepting without some kind of serious critical hesitation the New Testament Pilate. Put simply, neither the characterization of Pilate or his choices and behavior at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus are likely historically accurate. But does that really matter from the standpoint of accepting the core message of Jesus? Similarly, what difference does an alternative intepretation of Judas make to that core message, expect perhaps to finally give us something new to listen to in church???