Tuesday, April 11, 2006

WAY off topic!!

Father Jonathan Morris has written a wonderful piece in Foxnews about the "Gospel of Judas." He uses as his springboard, an execrable article on the subject (which I read) by the Grey Lady, herself. Here is a bit of what he had to say:

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.

As Father Morris notes, the New York Times spin machine was in full swing for the article. Typically, they got few things correct. The Times has been doing a lot of that lately. He also notes:

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.

He has given the paper more credit than they, perhaps, deserve. The Times has become increasingly agenda-oriented and ideologically-driven in recent years.

Eugene Volokh also has some scathing words of wisdom for the media's coverage of the "Gospel of Judas" here.

I have written about Father Morris before. He wrote a nice little article on Intelligent Design in December which I linked on this blog. When I wrote to him, thanking him for it, he responded with the following:
"James,  thanks for the e-mail and for posting the link.  God bless all of your work.
Father Jonathan"

Nifty!! Thanks again, Father Morris.


  1. I am just facinated with this 'The Gospel of Judas' Do you find that it assists the definition and understanding of the creation of the Bible?

  2. Only in the sense that, as Father Morris remarked, there were a bunch of texts that had been written in the late 100s and 200s that didn't jive with what was known at the time. I think Eugene Volokh's illustration is great. It doesn't fit anything else we know about the lives of Judas or Jesus. It is a fascinating little sidetrack because it does indicate that there were lots of groups trying to sort out alot of doctrine. Historically, it is worthwhile. It does not shed any light on the divity of Christ, however.