Everything's Coming Up Judas

In addition to the recent flare of popularity of the gnostic fraud, 'Gospel of Judas', there's a new novel by Jeffery Archer The Gospel According to Judas By Benjamin Iscariot. From a review by Dr. Justin Thacker:

At its simplest, it is an account of the public life of Jesus Christ in the style of the canonical gospels, and based on the testimony of Judas Iscariot as given to his son, Benjamin Iscariot. Hence, it is not given to wild fantasy or sensationalism like the The Da Vinci Code, nor is it a contemporary version of the second-century gnostic 'Gospel of Judas'; it is in a genre all of its own. It is the Diatessaron - a second-century harmonised gospel account - blended with some contemporary New Testament scholarship (albeit liberal), written by a disgraced politician and popular novelist; it is remarkable.

So now we have a 21st Century polluted gospel account. Yes, it's remarkable. The arrogance needed to undertake such an endeavor is staggering. And just to lend the novel some credibility, they dress it up:

The book is presented in a mock leather cover with gilded edges and a ribbon marker.

Wow, it looks so much like scripture, only a expert could tell the difference.

It is approximately the same length as one of the canonical gospels, and divided into twenty-five chapters, which are further divided into verses. Throughout, in red ink, parts of the canonical gospels are either quoted in full or faithfully paraphrased, and references to these verses are given in the margin. Hence, both visually and in terms of content, these authors are trying to present this work as a gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why all the effort? Isn't the Word of God sufficient as it is? Obviously not to these folks. And, I love the phrase "faithfully paraphrased". Speaks volumes, eh? Here are some of the more egregious deviations, as noted by the reviewer:

• In chapter 2, verse 8, doubt is cast on the authenticity of the virgin birth.
  
• Jesus presented in this gospel appears to have little interest in the 'Kingdom of God', nor in his own Messiahship.
  
• The book does not declare that Jesus was not the Christ, but it certainly casts doubt on this hypothesis, suggesting, with Judas, that he was merely a prophet, a man of God.
  
• What is missing, though, is the conclusion Peter reaches in Mark 8:29 "You are the Christ".
  
• The Judas presented in this account is not the one who betrays Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, but rather one who was only trying to protect Jesus from himself. Judas, it is suggested, is the only one who really understood what Jesus was about.
  

Okay, we know who's kool-ade they've been drinking.

The most disappointing factor to this is the Catholic scholar that was associated with the project, Francis Moloney, who naievely asserts that his motivation was to get people to know "what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ". Why not have people read the Bible? Scholars know better than to trust the Bible, as evidenced by the Jesus Seminar and its adherants.

h/t TitusOneNine

Interesting Acquisition

At our parish bazaar, this weeked, I scored a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, printed in 1970, and illustrated by Salvador Dali. For $12. Most of the color Illustrations are mixed media, mainly pencil and spastic watercolor, not the lush oils of some of his more prominent work. But, the book's in outstanding condition, complete with it's original box, and it even includes the deuterocanonical books.

Custom Bible

From WorldNetDaily, a story about a new bible, seemingly customised for stalwart Republicans:

A new publication of the Bible by a Dutch organization could take a lot of the stress out of reading the Holy Book's instructions for contemporary Christians, according to its publisher.

That's because those troublesome verses about justice for the poor, responsibility for the rich to address their neighbors' needs, and all that talk about money, are gone. Not just edited out, cut out...

"Jesus was very inspiring for our inner health, but we don't need to take his naïve remarks about money seriously. He didn't study economics, obviously," said a Mr. De Rijke, the chairman of the foundation, in a news release obtained by ANS.

Wow, to the DNC bible excises any sexual moral component of scripture, and the RNC version excises any materialist moral component of the Gospels. Poof! No more Bible. The money shot in the article comes early:

After all, no serious Christian takes such texts literally, he said.

Bwah-hah-hah-hah, these guys kill me. Sign him up for Friday nights at the Funny Bone. Now for the punchline:

However, the names listed for the officials of the foundation, "De Rijke" and "Fortuijn" give away the joke, which sometimes has produced more anger than humor among Christians.

"De Rijke" means "rich," and "Fortuijn" means "fortune," and the Bible actually is published by Time to Turn, a network of Dutch Christian students "who want to choose a sustainable and just way of life, based on their faith in Jesus Christ."

"They do not believe in a new legalism, or in a utopian state, but in a God who is willing to deliver the world from materialism and injustice. Time to Turn is linked to the international student movement Speak," the announcement said.

I love parody. Don't you?

On the Deutero-Canonical Scriptures:

Crossed the Tiber has a great article on the deutero-canonical scriptures, known (or unknown as the case is) to protestants everywhere as the Apocrypha:

Despite the fact that these books were part of the original canon up until the Reformation, they have in the past 600 years acquired a mysterious and questionable status in non-Catholic circles. I was recently asked why Catholics added 7 books to the Bible. The underlying assumption from the inquirer is that we "added" these books to justify our "unscriptural" doctrines and beliefs. My gentle response was to go back and look at the first Bible ever printed 70 years before the reformation, and before the Council of Trent. You will find the Gutenberg Bible contained all the books that Catholics supposedly added after the reformation to combat the reformation doctrines. Therefore, these books were always part of the original canon of Scripture from the fourth century when the Scriptures were first compiled, and it was the first reformer, Dr. Luther, who removed the books.

Read the rest there. As always, the faith and fervor of converts to the Church continually amazes me.