Curiously Uncritical

I have been reading the Gospel of Judas, with several supporting essays, from the National Geographic publication of 2006. I recall the hype that surrounded the publication of this work, and the claims that this was the most significant archaeological find of the past half-century. I confess that I am seldom swayed by popular clamor over Biblically-related discoveries, whether the promotion comes from liberal or conservative circles. I find it's best to allow some time for careful, scholarly assessment and critique.

What I found most intriguing in this book was not the text of the Gospel of Judas, which perhaps deserves further study but appears to be a more or less typical Gnostic treatise. It was comments in the essays that piqued my interest. In particular, the essays by Marvin Meyer and Bart Ehrman expressed opinions and ideas that demonstrated a marked contrast in the way they handled ancient material.

When writing about the books of the New Testament, these essays follow the general lines of mainline Protestant scholarship. The dates given for the NT documents are relatively late, and Ehrman in particular states that some of these books were not written by the authors claimed for them. They adopt the critical view of the NT that is accepted among their peers, while allowing no attention to conservative scholarship.

Yet when their attention is turned to Gospel of Judas, their critical stance mysteriously disappears. A date in the early-to-mid-second century is accepted to match the conclusion that this is the Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus, even though the match is far from exact. The possibility of textual emendations or alterations is almost summarily dismissed as unlikely. The portrait of Judas, while not claimed as historical, is accepted a giving insight into the place of Judas in Jesus' inner circle, while the accounts in Matthew and Acts are subtly questioned.

This leads to a question that I think is seldom if ever asked about "critical scholarship": why are scholars more skeptical of the canonical writings than of non-canonical writings? While I can't speak with certainty, I believe that this attitude is the result of a fundamentalism of liberalism that is every bit as real as the fundamentalism of conservatism. There are simply some beliefs that are accepted and no longer questioned, with contrary arguments ignored or dismissed,

This may seem harsh, and certainly puts me outside the so-called "mainstream" of Biblical scholarship. Yet we must take it into account when examining Biblical and historical discussions. Too often evangelical scholars are belittled due to their positions on Biblical authority, while liberal scholars are portrayed as open to whatever the evidence says. This is not an accurate assessment of either side; both have their fundamental beliefs that are accepted based on each scholar's own studies, and both need to be examined in light of all evidence. (I know that their are those on both sides who simply accept what they are taught and hold it without much examination, but I am more concerned with the realm if scholarly debate.)

So it is important to understand that our assumptions and presuppositions can color our views no matter where we fall on the theological spectrum. While it is comfortable to simply accept a few favored authors, a broader perspective will help us avoid letting what we believe to be colored too strongly by what we want to be true without examining it.