It is the Christmas season and along with decorations, carols, and long lines in the shopping malls comes the medial blitz trumpeting something that casts doubt on orthodox Christianity. There doesn’t seem to be an obvious rallying point - I thought they might be poised to annoint the movie based on the atheist “children’s fantasy” The Golden Compass, but it appears that debacle will join Heaven’s Gate and Waterworld in the special class of movies that end the careers of anyone associated with it. Apparently, atheism is so trendy in Hollywood that no one in a position of authority bothered to read the book and grasp the idea that it’s lifeless message would have little appeal before sinking $200 million into it. It will be even better when the second Chronicles of Narnia film rakes in the dollars upon its release. Yet despite such a setback, I am confident that by December 25 a numnber of major media outlets will have recovered from this disappointment and made their own contributions to throwing water on the yuletide fire.
When the onslaught comes, it might be comforting to look back and review their past record. A close examination reveals that their track record, like that of the so-called “psychics” who make their forcasts in tabloids this time of year, leaves something to be desired. Year after year they come every Christmas and Easter to cast doubt up the Christian faith with front page headlines. When the rebuttals, they are rarely taken as seriously and generally not given wide coverage.
An example from a few years back is when they were fawning over the Jesus Seminar - a group of the most revisionist scholars available - who published books and papers allegedly deciding for us what words attributed to Jesus were acutally his. The media hoopla would have had one thinking that the issue was now settled. Of course, the fact that most of the greatest Biblical scholars in the world disagreed with them was of little concern. When it comes to Christianity, any stick will do.
More recently, we had the example of the Da Vinci Code. In this case the media trumpeted the message of Dan Brown who recycled yarns from a long discredited expose about the bloodlines of Jesus (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) together with strands of other ideas from souces whose scholarly credentials were laughable. The deluge of books debunking Brown became a bit of a cottage industry (the best of these is Olsen & Meisel’s The Da Vinci Hoax which I have reviewed at my site here).
Last year, there was of course The Gospel of Judas. National Geographic announced the document as a major find that would change forever our interpretation of the one who betrayed the Lord. A book, TV special, and high-pwered PR campaign were commissioned to spread the news. Supposedly, the text reveals Judas as one who was actually the one in obedience to the Lord and everyone else missed the point. Of course, it didn’t really matter that the document was written centuries after the New Testament by a gnostic sect that had no ties to the faith of the Apostles.
Well, it turns out there was more wrong with these conclusions than that they were writen by a delusional sect centuries after the fact. It turns out the text doesn’t say what National Geographic has claimed. In their need (or maybe greed) to have an “exclusive”, they demanded non-disclosure agreements that effectively cut off their work from the scholarly community. The text was wrtten in an archaic form of Coptic that is best translated by a wider range of scholarly opinion. Numerous errors were made that changed the meaning of the text. Most egregiously, one sentence was changed in the Coptic original to that of the exact opposite of its actual meaning and then translated. A excellent summary of the issues has been given here by Dr. April D. DeConick of Rice University. It turns out that the text portrays Judas as demon possessed. Apparently the writer(s) of the Gospel of Judas may have been gnostic heretics, but even they weren’t addled enough to make a hero out of Judas.
The problem with these annual attacks is they undermine the faith of those who may not have the time or interest to track down the truth. As a result, the doubts may linger and some may come to believe that the nonsense presented is representative of contemporary scholarship. As much of a timewaster as it may be (who really wants to waste resources on nonsense like the Da Vinci Code?), it is important for the leaders of a parish or local church to answer these questions as they arise. My own parish has frequently run adult classes on such issues and they are usually among the best attended. Many people really want this addressed but feel intimidated by the stamp of “scholarship” placed on the most questionable work.
Just remember that whatever doubts they may cast this Christmas, there is always less there than meets the eye.