| Yawning
Bread. April
2006
Heresy in the Tree of Knowledge
|
|
|
The newly-publicised Gospel of Judas is heresy, most
biblical scholars are saying. The ideas contained in them are part of the
Gnostic mutation of early Christian thought and do not qualify as
Christian.
I am not one to say whether it's Christian or not, but it does strike me as interesting to be reminded that what is today included in the Bible is a very select compilation. Yet the more militant protestant churches insist that the Bible is inerrant and that it should be taken literally as God's word, and on this basis declare that gays and lesbians will surely burn in hell. But we are running ahead of the story. * * * * * Within a generation after Jesus, there was already a multiplicity of interpretations of his message. One of the more popular versions has been given the name "Gnosticism" from the Greek word "gnosis", meaning "knowledge". In a nutshell, the Gnostic tradition prioritises a high level of insight into the self as a way to being at one with God. It preaches that the divine is internal to all of us, though it can only be reached with a rather mystical, esoteric kind of "knowledge". This approach, however, puts it at odds with Christian ideas (as we know them today) that God, Jesus and redemption are external to us, and salvation comes from placing our lives in their hands. We cannot fully expect to know. We can only have faith. For a long time, what we knew about Gnosticism came from the denunciations that early Christian bishops issued. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (born ca.125 CE, died 202 CE) was the most notable among the leaders who condemned it as heretical. About 150 years later, Anthansius, bishop of Alexandria, formally proscribed Gnosticism. As Christianity acquired institutional form, eventually becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire, it obtained the coercive means to regulate matters of faith. Gnosticism was censored and suppressed -- one can imagined books burned -- and what has come down through history has mostly been the voices of those who denounced it. In 1945, however, the Nag Hammadi scrolls were discovered in upper Egypt. At last, scholars could see a substantial number of Gnostic texts in their own words. Among them were the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel to the Egyptians and many other fragments, reifying at last the centuries-old references to these "heretical Gospels" in Irenaeus' and others' denunciations. Biblical scholars studying the Nag Hammadi finds have mostly come to the same conclusion: that these are Gnostic Gospels and that they do indeed speak of a belief system that is fundamentally different from what we today consider Christianity. [1] This difference is most starkly illustrated in the two ways of telling the story of the Garden of Eden. In the common Christian version, Adam and (St)eve were innocent, clueless you might say, while fooling around in that nudist paradise. Then the serpent, which was Satan in disguise, sidled up to them and offered the two a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (the fruit is commonly depicted as an apple). Steve's acceptance of the fruit -- and his sharing with Adam -- represented the Fall of Man, and it displeased Yahweh, the Christian God. He banished the two of them from the Garden. In the Gnostic version, the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was exactly that -- an awakening of the consciousness. The serpent was the hero, trying to impart knowledge of the divine to Adam and (St)eve. Somehow, Yahweh was upset that they had disobeyed him in accepting the fruit, thus seeking the knowledge for themselves. So the two were exiled. Even as scholars gleaned more information about Gnosticism from the Nag Hammadi scrolls, it remained very much within academic circles. It took the unveiling of the Gospel of Judas to make it headline news. The Gospel of Judas was found in the 1970s, but it was lost again for years, and only in the last few months has research on it been publicised. Once again, biblical scholars mostly dismissed it as belonging to the Gnostic tradition, and therefore inadmissible as a "true" Christian text, though it does have a rather irresistible twist to the crucifixion story. In mainstream Christian tradition, Judas Iscariot is reviled for betraying Jesus to the Roman rulers of Palestine, but in the Gospel of Judas, it was Jesus himself who, privately, asked Judas to betray him, so that the Christian God's plan -- the death and redemption of Jesus on behalf of all humankind -- could unfold. This was one example of the secret knowledge (the Gnosis) that the other disciples weren't given. All this is very intriguing, but it is not for a non-Christian like me to say what is Christianity and what is heresy. What we may note is how from the very beginning of the religion, there has been an unending questioning of the belief system. At the same time, our attention is drawn to constant attempts by the various layers of authority, whether in the Roman Catholic, Protestant or other branches of Christianity, to regulate what is or is not Christian, what is approved or not approved. In fact, scholars have counted as many as 34 Gospels, but only 4 are included in the New Testament. The rest are not considered Christian. It sure sounds like a very major excision to me, but as I said, it's not for me to judge. But for whom is it to judge? And who are they to decide? * * * * *
|
||
|
On 16 April 2006, the Sunday Times
carried an interview with the Anglican bishop of Singapore, John Chew.
Predictably, he warned against homosexuality. He feared that it would become an "accepted lifestyle", and urged "Christians and others with religious beliefs" to "make their views known", in other words, to impose the bishop's ideas on non-believers. (He thus conflated other religions' beliefs with Christian beliefs. He seems not to know that Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, have nothing negative to say about homosexual orientation, so he may be shocked if they really did speak up!) Christianity in Singapore tends to be the born-again variety. Even the Anglican Church in Singapore resembles less the Anglican and Episcopal Churches in England and the US, than the Ugandan and Nigerian kind. Increasingly, the crazy, fundamentalist, American kinds are making inroads here. We have seen Singaporeans writing to the press recently condemning condoms, all sex outside marriage, evolution, and of course, homosexuality. They take the Bible literally and consider it inerrant. How this claim of inerrancy can be squared with a history replete with questioning and debate, and very human efforts at editing (and translating) the Bible, is quite beyond me. * * * * *
Realising that "his obligation to humanity is as important as his faith, and, more importantly, is not in opposition of it," he joined hands with furniture magnate Mitchell Gold to sponsor a series of print ads to promote reflection and tolerance.
This one, seen on the right has the text:
Another one is titled "Offense before God?" under which is a photograph of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (one of the more conservative members of the current bench) with his wife Virginia. The copy in the ad says,
Then in bolder typeface,
I am acutely conscious of course that in America, Childers and Gold are free to run their ads. In Singapore, their campaign's message would be considered nothing short of promoting homosexuality. Yes, yes, I know, the ads actually strive to promote tolerance, and not to turn people gay, but in Singapore, tolerance of homosexuality is as evil as homosexuality. See my mention of how even safe-sex messages were censored out because they made reference to committed gay relationships, in James gets in the way. Singapore's state ideology is, like Church
establishments, ever watchful of heresies. In the matter of sexual
orientation, fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is one such. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
The
campaign is called Faith in America, and its chief aim is to end the
"misuse of religion". Altogether, 
