- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 11, 2006

I’m loath even to touch on a subject about which, I suspect, many readers are far savvier than I. But in the debate over the “Gospel of Judas,” does it strike anyone else as self-defeating for boosters like Elaine Pagels to cherry-pick a literal assertion — that Judas was just following orders — from this discovery, only to cast doubt generally on the literal truth of the four canonical gospels? Isn’t this a case of having cake and eating it, too?

The so-called Gnostic texts are famous for their impenetrable mysticism; as Pagels writes, they were written as “advanced-level teaching for those who had already received Jesus’ basic message.” Perhaps. But doesn’t that disqualify them from even being considered definitive sources of historical Jesus scholarship?



Click to Read More

Click to Hide