Monday, May 08, 2006
The Tossed Book
I have a pretty good track record of finishing books I start, even ones I don't like. But I tossed aside 'The Lost Gospel,' published by National Geographic, after only ten chapters or so. The book, about the 'lost' gospel of Judas, came across as about 80 percent commercial hype and 20 percent vague ideology. It strains, disingenuously in my opinion, to give biblical credibility to the Judas 'gospel,' constantly suggesting it could 'shake' the foundation of what we know about the New Testament, etc., etc., etc. Another underlying theme is that the New Testament, as it portrays Judas, fostered animostity toward Jews (and it did) and therefore things might have turned out differently if the Judas 'gospel' had been incorporated into the New Testament. So let me get this straight: The manuscripts not only could have changed the very foundation of early Christianity but also could have changed the very course of history. Talk about hype. ... National Geographic ought to be embarrassed. ...
... I had a bad feeling about the book before I began reading it (but, alas, not before I bought it). ... Considering how often the book uses the words 'could' and 'might' and 'suggests' and 'one could argue' and 'indicates' etc., I guess my own hedged hypothesis should be just as valid: Might the manuscript have possibly been written by members of a break-away gnostic sect who could have veered off on a different religious tangent as did, say, Muslims and, oh, Mormons? But that wouldn't have sold as many conveniently timed books, magazines and documentaries. ...
I have a pretty good track record of finishing books I start, even ones I don't like. But I tossed aside 'The Lost Gospel,' published by National Geographic, after only ten chapters or so. The book, about the 'lost' gospel of Judas, came across as about 80 percent commercial hype and 20 percent vague ideology. It strains, disingenuously in my opinion, to give biblical credibility to the Judas 'gospel,' constantly suggesting it could 'shake' the foundation of what we know about the New Testament, etc., etc., etc. Another underlying theme is that the New Testament, as it portrays Judas, fostered animostity toward Jews (and it did) and therefore things might have turned out differently if the Judas 'gospel' had been incorporated into the New Testament. So let me get this straight: The manuscripts not only could have changed the very foundation of early Christianity but also could have changed the very course of history. Talk about hype. ... National Geographic ought to be embarrassed. ...
... I had a bad feeling about the book before I began reading it (but, alas, not before I bought it). ... Considering how often the book uses the words 'could' and 'might' and 'suggests' and 'one could argue' and 'indicates' etc., I guess my own hedged hypothesis should be just as valid: Might the manuscript have possibly been written by members of a break-away gnostic sect who could have veered off on a different religious tangent as did, say, Muslims and, oh, Mormons? But that wouldn't have sold as many conveniently timed books, magazines and documentaries. ...
