The author of the Gospel of Judas wasn't against martyrdom, and he didn't ever insult the martyrs. He said it's one thing to die for God if you have to do that. But it's another thing to say that's what God wants, that this is a glorification of God.
Interpretation
The quote distinguishes between dying for one's beliefs and claiming that such death glorifies God.
Elaine Pagels highlights a nuanced view on martyrdom, suggesting that while sacrificing oneself for faith can be seen as an expression of devotion, presenting such sacrifices as a divine demand elevates them to a problematic level. This perspective invites reflection on the motivations behind martyrdom and the implications of framing such acts as a glorification of God.
In practice
This quote could be used in a discussion about the ethics of martyrdom in religious contexts.
I just have a sense that, you know, I'm curious about what is religion about, you know? Why do some of us still engage it? It's not because it's a set of old beliefs or old ideas. Or even, particularly, the view that this is the only true religion. Many of us no longer accept those views.
There are some kinds of Christianity that insist you have to believe literally in doctrine. The Gnostic gospels open out the complexity and multiplicity of approaches to this. If you think the story of the virgin birth is mistranslated, for instance, it doesn't mean you have to throw out the whole thing.
People who are comfortable with very clear boundaries and group definitions don't like the instability and ambiguity of people who say they are more advanced Christians, or they don't have to do what the bishop says.
Startling as the Gospel of Judas sounds, it amplifies hints we have long read in the Gospels of Mark and John that Jesus knew and even instigated the events of his passion, seeing them as part of a divine plan.
Rediscovering the controversies that occupied early Christianity sharpens our awareness of the major issue in the whole debate, then and now: What is the source of religious authority? For the Christian the question takes more specific form: What is the relation between the authority of ones own experience and that claimed for the scriptures, the ritual and the clergy?
I study religion because I find it fascinating and problematic. But I struggle with the idea of what religion is, what being religious means. A lot of people assume that if you write about early Christianity, you must be some kind of Sunday-school teacher.
The man who said 'I'd rather be lucky than good' saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net and for a split second it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck it goes forward and you win. Or maybe it doesn't and you lose.
Those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will not stand in need of such lights.
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own.
I don't smoke but I keep a match box in my pocket, when my heart slips towards sin, I burn the matchstick and heat my palm with it, then say to myself, "Ali you can't even bear this heat, how would you bear the unbearable heat of hellfire?"
How prudently most men creep into nameless graves, while now and then one or two forget themselves into immortality.
How can I make difference so that I may bring peace to this world that I love and cherish so much? A name flickers instantly in my mind.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.