dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog

Regarding the newly rediscovered Gospel of Judas, there’s an old joke about two farmers at a convention. They’re having drinks and swapping stories. The first farmer is from Texas and he’s in the mood for swaggerin’. “You know, I can start my day on one end of my farm, get in my car and by nightfall, I haven’t reached the other end.” The New England farmer was slightly non-plussed, then he replied. “Yep. I know what you mean. I once had a car like that. Finally sold it.”

There’s a second version of the same joke. Here it is: Two farmers are at a convention. They’re having drinks and swapping stories. The first farmer is from Texas and he’s in the mood for swaggerin’. “You know, I can start my day on one end of my farm, get in my car and by nightfall, I haven’t reached the other end.” The New England farmer was slightly non-plussed, then he replied. “Yep. I know what you mean. I once had a cow like that. Finally sold it.”

So here’s the question: Which version of the joke is (closer to) the original? Literary scholars will all agree. The second version is likely older. Bizarre twists in logic are almost never added when stories are retold. Time wears down the rough edges of illogic in stories because retellers can’t help but want to “clean up” what they tell. The “Jesus Seminar” meets every few years to try to discern from all available texts which words in our Bible were most likely actually spoken by the man whose birth marks zero on our calendars.

I wrote at the outset that the Gospel of Judas has been recently rediscovered. That’s an important distinction. The Gospel of Judas, together with a whole pile of other gnostic writings, were well known around 200 AD. They were purposely omitted from the Bible. All the stories and documentaries being foisted on us this week have a chronological bigotry embedded in them, as if this “discovery” is another (larger) glove found under a bush on O.J.’s California estate. New evidence!

There’s nothing new about the Gospel of Judas. It was dismissed in 180 AD as a heretical writing. It was passed over when the books of the New Testament were being fashioned into a canon. There’s nothing to see here, people. Move along.

If you still insist on being fascinated with the story told from Judas’ point of view, fine. Rent “Godspell,” which does the same thing better. What should be more interesting and productive would be to consider WHY the text was omitted from the canon. Here we come back to the two versions of the joke. The harder reading is almost always the more authentic.

The gnostic writings had a simple solution to the death of Jesus. He didn’t REALLY die. Only his body died. Or, as the Gospel of Judas puts it, the clothing that surrounds the man. The flesh is bad and evil and temporary. But the spirit inside each body is eternal and good and can’t be killed. Forget the “man-bites-dog” reversal of fortunes that Judas was actually the favorite of Jesus. That’s the scent that newshounds are trained to pick up, but it has nothing to do with the deliberations (arduous and transparent, lasting almost 200 years) of those who were closest to the sources.

Marvel instead at the wisdom of those church leaders who saw the simple solution devised by the gnostics and refused it. They recognized it was a more logical retelling of the story that is the foundation of their faith and they chose instead the more difficult version. Thank God they did.

If the point of Jesus death was that none of this veil of tears matters, then his life was essentially meaningless. Why stand up for the poor, or mix with the downtrodden, or challenge authority — if it’s a temporary condition to be remedied at death? I dare say that easier reading would have gone down easier, but by now it wouldn’t be remembered at all.

Tags: 1 Comment