Non Canonical Books Introduction Study

Non Canonical Books

Introduction study of the non-canonical books, those books left out of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, stands informed by the books that were included in the Old and New Testaments. The question must be asked, "What was the purpose of the books of the Bible?" In answering that question it then becomes possible to understand why the non-canonical books were left out of the Bible. In asking the question of purpose, it becomes obvious with a study of the Bible: The purpose of inclusion in the Old and New Testaments were that of community, law, and social order. The books included in the Bible are intended to address those issues that the community leaders perceived to be problems of their community: morality, civil obedience, paying taxes, adultery, alcoholism, and virtually every civil and social aspect of community behavior intended to keep order, economy, and morality well directed. Then it becomes clearer that the stories or books left out of the Bible were deemed to be of no or little value in guiding the community or providing a moral to the story, such that it evoked the human range of emotions resulting in civil and moral obedience (Thorburn, Thomas James, 1916). Limiting the timeline to the those works that would be of the New Testament, it is from this perspective that this brief study, relying upon the existing body of scholarly work, will attempt to understand the reason that the recently discovered lost Gospel of Judas, a highly debated and controversial work, might have been left out of the Bible.

Establishing Authentication and Timelines

One of the main concerns of theologians about discovery of non-canonical works arises out of authorship. Are the works forgeries, written in the name of the Apostles, but by individuals hoping to capitalize on whatever fame and fortune the original finding or writing of the book might afford them (Erhman, Bart D., 2003, p. 3). This is the subject broached by author and historian Bart D. Erhman (2003), in his book Lost Scriptures: Books that did not Make it into the New Testament. Even when those works are discovered by qualified archeologists, or, in the case of many recent findings, Bedouins, those works must be carefully examined to determine whether or not the authorship is indeed that of the Apostle to whom it is attributed to (p. 3). The importance of authentication for books of the New Testament, says Erhman, is that the Apostleship of the book authenticates it as an official record of the teachings of Jesus that are the second installment, after the Old Testament, of the Word of God, and should be read in conjunction with the Old Testament (p. 3).

The importance of authenticity is important because it is 1) delivered to mankind by the Son of God; 2) it establishes the guidelines by which mankind is to conduct himself, and 3) it therefore creates a sense of empowerment over the behavior of millions of devout Christians who are guided more by the scripture than they might be guided by mortal community leaders. The power to influence or alter the behavior of millions of Christians would be an enormous power, one accomplished without a military army or the use of force - although it might in and of itself by virtue of the behavioral alteration result in that use of force.

The debates over which texts actually were apostolic, and therefore authoritative, lasted many years, decades, even centuries. Eventually -- by about the end of the third Christian century -- the views of one group emerged as victorious. This group was itself internally diverse, but it agreed on major issues of the faith, including the existence of one God, the creator of all, who was the Father of Jesus Christ, who was both divine and human, who along with the Father and the Holy Spirit together made up the divine godhead. This group promoted its own collection of books as the only true and authentic ones, and urged that some of these books were sacred authorities, the "New" Testament that was to be read alongside of and that was at least as authoritative as the "Old" Testament taken over from the Jews (Erhman, 2003, p. 3).

This means that an important element in the approach to determining authenticity exists in establishing a timeline or framework within which the work is determined to have been written. It would, mean, too, that the "group promoting its own collection" of works, had, knowing that these other authentic works existed, might have deliberately chosen not to include them in the Bible. If a book is a forgery, it is moot on its exclusion from the Bible. Thus, establishing the timeline is essential to establishing authenticity.

Once authenticity is established, it becomes possible, based on other books of the Bible and using other relevant historical events and information, to understand why the community and religious leaders might have chosen to leave such a seeming important work as the Gospel of Judas out of the Bible

The Gospel of Judas

Journalist and historian John Dart (2005), writing for the Christian Century, points out that the lost Gospel of Judas was actually referenced in 180 AD, by "The heresy fighting Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, France," who attributed the writing to a Gnostic sect (p. 12). It was mentioned again, Dart says, by Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, who criticized the gospel for extolling the traitor Judas as a man who did the ultimate sacrifice for the Savior so that He could accomplish his work in ensuring mankind's salvation (p. 12).

Given these historical references, it then follows that the Gospel of Judas was indeed an existing work as early as 180 AD. The problem of authentication is then resolved, but the problem of why it was not included in the New Testament remains. The first clue to that comes through the historical markers made by the only two references to the book; a heresy hunter, and, then, Epiphanius, who at least shares his perspective that Judas was, so he believed, a traitor, not an insider performing at the behest of his Savior.

Given the perspective of the historical markers, a closer examination of the Gospel of Judas will yield more information as to why it might have been excluded from the New Testament. Marvin Meyer, co-chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Chapman University, working under the National Geographic Society, was part of the "dream team," assembled by the National Geographic Society to "authenticate, conserve, and translate the lost Gospel of Judas. Meyer has authored a number of works on the non-canonical gospels, such as the Gospels of Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus; and the Gnostic Gospels of Jesus.

Since the translation was funded by the National Geographic Society, the translation and the original papyrus pages of the gospel were kept secreted, which lead to criticism from other theologians and academics. However, Meyer and those others with whom he worked (Rodolphe Kasser and Gregor Wurst), are reliable academicians and ancient text translators with the backgrounds and credentials to substantiate their work. For the time being, until other experts have time to analyze and develop differing conclusions, Meyer, et al., work must serve as the body of work with which to do at least this brief study.

The translated Gospel of Judas is a contradiction to the other Gospels of the New Testament that discusses the role of the traitor, Judas Iscariot (Kasser, Meyer and Wurst, 2006, p. 2). The Gospel of John has Jesus calling Judas a devil when preparing them, including Judas who is present, for the events that will follow his betrayal by one who denounces him (p. 2). Here it becomes essential to understand that the portrayal of the man who betrayed Jesus as a devil, someone not in collusion with Jesus, but working against Jesus would have been the story selected by the early authenticators of the New Testament because it would create the importance of loyalty to faith, causing the new Christian to be concerned with being branded a devil - Jesus' own words to his disciples, including Judas. In Acts and in Matthew, Judas suffers the horrendous mutilating death as a result of his betrayal of Jesus (p. 2). This is what the early Church leaders wanted the early Christians to believe would be their shared fate should they deviate from the path of Christianity.

Now, considering the translation of Kasser, Meyer and Wurst, what becomes of the history of Judas as the traitor of faith that has sustained the Christians as the remainder of what happens to them when they betray their faith; that which served to keep Christians loyal to Jesus, to their faith, no longer exists for them. Rather, the traitor was actually a co-conspirator with Jesus, and who was by virtue of that co-conspiracy privy to secrets divulged to him by Jesus that were not made known to the other disciples (p. 2).

Looking at this from the perspective of what was intended to be the lesson to the communities at the time that the works were either included, or excluded from the New Testament, it becomes clear that the threat associated with betrayal of faith was more important to the religious leaders than was the image of Judas as a co-conspirator. Christianity was in its infancy when the New Testament was created, and it would have been important to the leaders of the Christian community to inspire some level - even a lot - of fear of retribution for failing the community and their faith.

This is supported by Joseph Gaer (1952), whose book the Lore of the New Testament, provides the insight into the stories of the New Testament, and those stories are frightening to people whose change in direction from religious paganism, to a monotheistic following is relatively new. For instance, as concerns Judas Iscariot, the New Testament has Jesus casting Satan out of the demonically possessed Judas when they meet.

Satan took possession of the sick boy and, as he was accustomed to, the boy tried to bite the person nearest to him. But as soon as he touched Jesus, Satan jumped out of the possessed boy in the form of a mad dog, and fled. And the name of that demented boy, out of whom Satan issued the form of a mad dog, was Judas Iscariot (p. 85)."

This story, and stories like them, which are included in the New Testament concerning the life of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus are potent warnings of what the devil is capable of, and that the devil was in possession of Judas also suggests that when Judas betrayed Jesus, he might have this time willingly taken with Satan, who had possessed him earlier, when Judas denied his faith by betraying Jesus.

Today, of course, contemporary Christian society is perhaps equally as well served to think of Judas in terms of a co-conspirator, as opposed to a traitor. This, because the early Christians and Church were based in Rome, and is represented by Catholicism, when today there are as many offshoots of Catholicism as there are perhaps Catholics. Would it not serve the offshoots from a religious and social perspective to think of Judas in terms of a co-conspirator then? Probably not, because it would serve to bring the Bible in whole into question, and this is probably one area that scholars will find the Catholic Church and the Protestants in agreement on.

Historian and author James Moffatt (1913) discusses the non-canonical or Gnostic Gospels in his book, the Theology of the Gospels. Moffatt reflects the contemporary experience with the Bible as it pertains to the revelations of the Gnostic, and, most recently, the Gospel of Judas wherein Judas is portrayed as a co-conspirator, rather than a traitor.