Most of you have probably read about the release of the translated versions of what is being heralded as the
"Gospels of Judas". The reaction from the traditional Christian orthodoxy and its adherents will be swift, hyperbolic, predictable, and unworthy of intelligent discourse.
Heresy will be the most quoted word from the Catholic Church, who will lead the attacks for a myriad of Christian organizations, as it was when the Nag Hammadi documents (also known as the Gnostic Gospels) were first released.
Conventional theology (
study of the logos) maintains that there is a - the Word, the Son, ideal being (there is no One definition) - out there, somewhere, and that in order to understand the logos we mere mortals need a guide, an interpreter. The heresy, the heretical thought behind the Gnostic Gospels is the belief that the logos resides within each of us and therefore we need no guide, no interpreter, and therefore no Church. (Disclaimer: This is a gross oversimplification and though factually accurate does not begin to include the broader set of arguments, but that would take days.)
The heresy, the heretical thought of the "Gospels of Judas" is a direct assault on Christian Dogma as it questions the fallibility of the guides, the interpreters, the Church. For if the accepted Canonical Law, in the betrayal of Jesus by Judas as represented in Matthew and Acts (which do not agree), are proven wrong then what in the New Testament is correct? (Disclaimer: As above.)
The arguments by orthodox Christian adherents that rail against the validity of these documents reads like a rant from an atheist who rails against all religion: 1) The documents were written years after the actual events, 2) This is obviously written by someone that had a "beef" with the church, 3) Canon Law and review by Councils have weeded out what is accurate, what is historically important, and what is pure bunk. In response: 1) All the books of the Bible were. 2) In the 2nd and 3rd centuries the early Church was in disarray. Powerful Bishops routinely slaughtered rivals, as heretics, in an effort to consolidate their power. The "beef" was real and being labeled a heretic didn't mean you were anything more then a pawn in a politically motivated power grab. 3) The false assumption here is that the members of these councils (such as the Nicean Council of 325 A.D.) and who wrote Canon Law had no agenda of their own, which of course they did, cherry picking what information went into the Bible and, more importantly, what did not.
Recent interest in Gnostic thought can be attributed to modern fiction such as the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown whose premise contends that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child who's blood line can be traced to modern times, a theme that is sure to generate controversy, and book sales, but is patently false. If you take the time to read the Gnostic Gospels, at least the English translation as in my case, they never actually make that claim. It is some scholars, some interpreters of these documents that maintain that this MAY be the case based on incomplete sentences and word snippets contained in the Gospels.
It is nothing so titillating as a divine "love child" that has orthodox Christianity so worried, so defensive. Though they fight this as the crack in the dam that it is, it is not just their Dogmatic view of Jesus that is at stake, it is their very existence that is in jeopardy, for if the average Christian were to learn, to understand, to grasp the knowledge of the Gnosis then they and their institutions become obsolete.
Since I was a young child I have been fascinated by religion, mythology, and religious philosophy. Not necessarily as a "true believer" but I have always felt that if you ignore religion and its effects upon modern thought then you are operating with an incomplete history of what motivates men.
What has always struck me as being the most false about organized religion is this orthodox Dogma that as an adherent you could not possibly begin to understand or accept God without the intervention or direction of a guide, an interpreter, a middle man. Even as a very young child just beginning to explore the Bible and the teachings of Jesus this hierarchical Dogma seemed contrary to the message and only weakened the personal nature of God.
As an undergrad student I had the good fortune to attend a lecture given by Harold Bloom, it was not on religion but eventually the questioning came around to the topic. He put into words exactly what I had been feeling my entire life. As a member of any congregation I was weak, uninformed, led. As a Gnostic I am responsible, informed, and in control of my relationship with God. It has been as liberating an experience as any person could hope for. Knowledge should never be a bad thing.
For anyone that might be interested in learning more I would suggest "Omens of Millennium" by Harold Bloom as a short good overview of Christian history and the origins of Gnosticism. You can find a more diverse reading list here.