Forbidden Texts

I find it interesting how Sade wrote the 120 Days of Sodom in such a methodical way. From the first page of the manuscript, he breaks the introduction to the 120 days into six sections. There, he describes all of the characters in the novel (which are honestly difficult to keep track of because there are so many), the regulations the libertines will abide by during the 120 days, and how they go about setting this whole operation into motion. The exposition of this novel is extremely long, which is one of the things I find most striking about its structure. Sade really wanted us to know these characters inside and out, possibly in order to fully understand the extent of the debauchery they engage in as well as the ruthlessness and cruelty of the four libertines, which greatly contrast that of the children and their daughters (minus Julie).

I also find it interesting how Sade wanted all the child victims to be of the elite French class, instead of being poor. I feel like this choice was very deliberate in that Sade wanted the audience to understand that the most extreme debauchery seeks the ruin of others, and someone that is already poor cannot fall any further than they already have. The opposite is the case for rich people of high social status. 

There is also heavy anti-religious sentiment in this novel, of course stemming from the increasingly despicable acts committed by the four libertines throughout the course of the novel, but also because of the way Sade wrote the four libertine’s characters, particularly the bishop. They denounce God throughout the novel and even offer the most severe of punishments to Constance and Sophie for their practice of Christianity at the castle. The bishop in particular serves as an oxymoron himself as he is committing the worst of sins, does not seem to believe in God, and yet he is a well-respected religious figure.

One common thread I have noticed between the four texts we have read so far in this class is that they are all very extreme, and the extremeness has pointed towards an issue that people of authority do not want addressed. This, coupled with the paragraph below, leads me to believe that Sade was trying to say something political and grab people’s attention using the most extreme of content.

The structure of this novel also feels very repetitive in a way and gets increasingly worse in terms of the types of stories told by the four storytellers and activities committed by the libertines. The fact that the 120 days goes by so smoothly in such an uninterrupted way for the libertines (reflected by the structure of the novel), since they are in full control the entire time, potentially sheds light on the influence and power of people like the four libertines that allows them to get away with whatever they want. Based on the first few sentences of the introduction, it seems like Sade thought that the political climate of France at the time is what made it possible for people like the four libertines to get away with things similar to the deeds committed in the novel. This is to say that Sade was potentially trying to shed light on French society at the time, but this will be more explored when I am able to discuss the context of this novel in Thursday’s blog post. So, until next time.

When I first read A Modest Proposal, I read the 1730 edition. This text proved difficult to read, not necessarily because of the content, but because of the way it was written. The style of the lowercase “s” and having no knowledge of the historical context made it difficult for me to determine whether Swift was serious or using satire. However, once I read the modern translation and the historical background surrounding the text, the meaning became clearer. From my interpretation, Swift’s work is a satirical text used to highlight the elite class’s negative and animalistic treatment of the poorer Irish people.

One thing that stood out to me was how much Swift contradicts himself. In the beginning of the text, he talks about how children are a burden, but then suggests his solution would end abortions. This train of thought was confusing to me because, if children are such a burden and poor Irish parents can’t provide for them, wouldn’t Swift propose abortions? But then again, this contradiction may help set up the proposed idea of eating and using children for clothing.

My main takeaway from this text is that Swift is trying to elicit a shocked and disgusted reaction from people. This is because the tone of the work is sensible and serious while suggesting cannibalism. He describes children as something the poor can profit from and boost the economy. Swift also suggests using children for clothing items, similar to what is done with animals. The comparison between children and animal treatment adds to the shock value of this text. Swift wants to create this reaction because it can be related to the time this text was written. By writing this text, Swift exposes how the upper class sees the lower class as something to be used rather than people.

In summary, while A Modest Proposal contains disgusting ideas, the deeper meaning of the text is very interesting. At first, I wasn’t knowledgeable about the conditions in Ireland during this period; however, this work allowed me to do a deep dive into history. While the 1730 edition was difficult to comprehend, it was fascinating to see a writing style from such a long time ago.

As I was reading the first couple of pages of “A Modest Proposal” I had nearly forgotten what class I was reading for. That quickly changed when I reached the titular proposal. Swift’s “modest proposal” to solve Ireland’s economic issues was to eat babies! He tries to support this proposal by arguing that it will provide relief from the burden of raising children, help get rid of the poor and catholic, and it will make the kingdom wealthier. I was shocked and disgusted during my initial reading due to how straightly these horrid actions were being proposed. But as I continued to read, I realized that this text was not a genuine proposal, but instead a work of satire.

When Jonathan Swift wrote this in 1729, Ireland was being oppressed under British rule. Because of this, Ireland faced famine and economic restrictions. After gaining a brief understanding of Ireland during the time when this was written, it becomes easier to see the author’s intent. This work satirizes Britain’s cruel treatment and view of the Irish people.

Although the author makes great use of satire, the most apt example is when the author compares the Irish poor to livestock while English Elite are referred to as “persons of Quality and Fortune”. The English landlords viewed their Irish workers, as not fully human, and as tools to be exploited in order to gain a profit. “very proper for Landlords , who, as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children”

Although the content of “The Modest Proposal” is disturbing and upsetting, the thing that I find truly horrifying is not the text itself but what happened after. As I was writing this blog post, I had wrongly assumed that this work was in response to the Great Famine. The Great Famine lasted from 1845 to 1852 and was one of the darkest periods in Irish history, causing the deaths of one million people and forcing another million to leave the country. Originally, I thought this work was in response to that tragedy but I was horrified to discover that Irish oppression continued for over a hundred years after this work but also got significantly more devastating. Even today, a portion of Ireland is still under British control.

After reading A Proposal I was honestly confused at first because I did not understand if Swift was being serious or not. At the beginning he talks about mothers and children in Ireland and how many families were struggling. It sounds like he is trying to find a solution to poverty.. Then he suddenly proposes that poor families should sell their babies as food. That was probably the part of the reading for me because I was not expecting the argument to go in that direction at all. He even talks about how much a child would weigh and how it could be cooked, which makes the whole thing more uncomfortable.

Something else that I found strange was how Swift talks about children almost like they are a business product. He calculates how money the parents could make and how the rich people could benefit from buying the children. Coming from the Dominican Republic this way of talking about families feels especially strange to me because family is usually something people take very seriously even when a family does not have much money. Course I know the situation in the text is from a different time and place but it still made me think about how differently people can look at poverty depending on their society. I also found it interesting that Swift brings religion into the proposal. He says that his plan would reduce the number of Catholics in Ireland, which showed me that the problem was not about poverty but also about religion, politics and social divisions.

The more I read the more I realized that Swift is not really giving a solution. I think he is trying to make people feel shocked about how poor people were being treated. What makes it work is that he uses a calm and serious tone while saying things that are completely horrible. He even says that his proposal would have economic benefits and talks about the money that would circulate in the country. For me that was probably the interesting part because it made me think that sometimes people can become so focused on money and numbers that they stop thinking about the people behind those numbers. I did not love the reading because some parts were very uncomfortable. I think that is also the point. Swift makes the idea so extreme that it forces the reader to pay attention to the problem, behind it: poor people were already being treated as if their lives did not matter.

Cannibalism, a crime so heinous that most who resort to such measures only do so when wildly desperate, is depicted in Smith’s “Modest Proposal” as a way to control the population, specifically the poor and unhoused. When I first understood what this classist, sexist man from the 17^th-18^th century was suggesting, I was so repulsed that I had to physically shut my computer and look outside for several minutes. As someone who has worked with children, the very idea of raising humans to be slaughtered is something that goes against my core beliefs and moral values. One objection to this, as mentioned in the text, may be; well, humans raise animals to be slaughtered, how is it any different? To such a question, I might say that pigs, cows, and sheep do not have the same value as a human in my mind, mainly due to the fact that they are a separate species and cannot communicate with me.

No matter a person’s background, I believe every human has intrinsic worth to their community and should be respected, protected, and educated as a child to ensure their success and civic engagement as an adult. Smith’s plan reeks of old philosophies that declare the wealthy to be the only ones who are smart, valuable, and powerful; something that is not only incorrect, but offensive to every human who is not lucky enough to be born into a rich family. Of course, only a person who has never known desperation, who has never lived on the streets, who has never had to beg for food would suggest those in poverty to sell and/or eat their own children, their own flesh and blood, as a way to boost the economy. This old-fashioned thinking disgusts me, and I am not looking forward to discussing such a topic in class.

What a book. Bear with me, as for a “Modest Proposal”, it feels quite vulgar.

In the book A Modest Proposal, the author opens with an idea that he has: to make use of poor children. He describes, for five pages, how poor babies are not only a burden on the state but a burden on their families as well. At first, he hints at his idea, stating how their life would contribute to the feeding and clothing of others. Finally, stating on page 10 how he believes these poor children should be turned into livestock. The author proposes that out of a hundred twenty thousand, twenty thousand would be made into basic livestock, and the other hundred thousand would be well-fed for the wealthier class. Let it be known, the author is referring to babies under the age of two. The author additionally adds two more proposals if it came to it — the first, to turn the skin of live babies into apparel, second, to sell the carcass of the well-fed girls, as they are worth a good amount. Then he lists the advantages of this idea, and further states how anyone who wishes to make an argument against him would need a better solution for the poor.

The Advantages:

1. Rids the kingdom of the poor and useless
2. Will give the poor something of value
3. Makes the kingdom wealthier
4. Free’s poor mothers of the burden of raising their children
5. Allows good cooks to not only experiment but make more money
6. Will make married women and men happier to not have to raise their children
7. Will raise meat exports of the kingdoms.

There are additionally 2 statements that took me aback, a suggestion that the rich have already eaten the poor parents, and references to an American companion that would seem to also be a cannibal. Both were almost vague statements that I wouldn’t want to presume I’m interpreting correctly.

Now my personal view on the book: from the start, I knew where the book was going; however, at no point did I expect what the author would say. Plumping up babies, skinning them alive, selling carcasses. Unfortunately, this reminds me of real-life instances or conspiracies that I will refrain from stating on the internet, which contribute to my theory for this “banned book”.

Would those of higher class, who may or may not participate in such activities, want this book hidden from the public to stay hidden themselves…? If it was a “proposal”, which I personally took to be a dystopian-satirical proposal, why have it banned instead of used to inform people of dangerous mindsets? Say the author was being serious in his statements, why not use it to steer people away from such ideas because of common sense?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not ignorant of the fact that this is my personal (and extremely conspiracy-minded) view of this book. Maybe those who wanted it pulled simply did not want this to become a popular idea! Just my thoughts!

While I certainly don’t know much about 18th-century Irish Politics, the issues of poverty and the poor treatment of those less fortunate are still issues present in today’s society, and for that I think A Modest Proposal remains relevant and an important work for those wanting to go into public service and other fields that involve working towards a “public good”.

What stood out to me the most was just how straightforwards the writing seemed. Swift writes about the mass-murder and cannibalism of children as if it’s a completely reasonable idea, and not something completely shocking. While I did know about the subject matter going into it, I was surprised at how long Swift took to actually name his solution, something that I imagine was to get readers interested so they don’t immediately put the text down. It’s spoken very matter-of-factly, too, as if a large amount of thought was put into an idea that would never actually be implemented, including the speaker claiming to have tried human flesh himself, and laying out all the uses for this proposed system of baby-eating.

One aspect I personally find interesting is towards the end, Swift lists a number of actual solutions to economic imbalance, such as ending reliance on foreign goods, taxing absent landlords, ending factionalism, etc., while also telling readers not to mention them unless they are willing to attempt their implementation. I think that this is where the real satire of A Modest Proposal shines through, in that by discounting these actual answers in favor of the outlandish baby-eating scheme, he highlights them. If people aren’t willing to try something as simple as taxing landlords, why should a proposal like Swift’s make any difference?

The reason that this work was suppressed, I feel, is that it goes against the societal neglect levied against poorer Irish residents, and by calling it out, it may have made some upper-class readers feel attacked. While the content itself is shocking, the most important part of A Modest Proposal isn’t the ideas themself, but rather how it holds a mirror to the way poor people were treated. Reducing those without means to a resource to be consumed is the logical endpoint of ideas like indentured servitude, where those desperate to survive essentially sold themselves in the hopes that it would eventually lead to a way out of poverty. Swift points out how the wealthy elite see those struggling as a resource to be managed instead of as people, and indirectly makes it clear that processing those in need for food is not entirely different from how they are actually treated.

Overall, I actually found the text pretty enjoyable, despite the dark subject matter. I don’t usually read things from this era, and it was an interesting challenge dealing with the flowery language, the old lowercase S, and other such quirks of 1700s writing. I was able to pick up on the satire on my first read, too, which added to the work in my opinion. It still remains shocking, despite how long ago it was written, and I think it’s an important work considering the subject matter and how it’s still relevant to discussions over how to handle the rising wealth gap and increasing rate of homelessness in the US.

One of the most striking features of A Modest Proposal was how Jonathan Swift seems to be contradicting himself. After reading about the context surrounding when this proposal was written, it seemed to me like Swift was sympathizing with the plight of poor and middle-class Irish Catholics, while simultaneously showing great indifference towards them in some of his other works. This made me wonder if Swift wrote this proposal not only as a satire of England’s exploitation of Ireland and the Irish elite’s exploitation of the lower class, but also as a satirical critique of those that claimed him to not show pity towards the state of the Irish poor. It’s also likely that Swift wrote this proposal in a satirical way because he knew the weight of the argument he was making against England/wealthy Irish landlords and that if he didn’t make an attempt to relieve tension for readers from both sides (that of the wealthy English/Irish landlords and the poor Irish Catholics), then he might have found himself in a lot more trouble than his proposal already entailed. With that being said, Swift didn’t spare details of brutality and grotesqueness in his proposal, which seems to correspond to the increasingly deteriorating state of Ireland and the worsening social conditions at the time A Modest Proposal was written. I believe that his use of the cannibalism of children and infants definitely makes it apparent how serious he was about the encroachment of England on Ireland and the Irish landlords devouring parents and having the titles to their children. Overall, he gets the message across for how severely Ireland was suffering. Honestly, Swift’s proposal seems like something English authority/wealthy Irish landlords definitely wouldn’t have wanted circulating around because of how negatively it portrays their exploitation of Ireland and poor Irish Catholics. Swift essentially portrays England and wealthy Irish landlords as brutal and evil by equating their exploitation of Ireland and the Irish people to that of exploiting children as a food source. This is likely part of what made this text “controversial” in the eyes of English authority and Irish landlords at the time. I suppose he also likely used the cannibalism metaphor in particular because of the famine occurring in Ireland at the time he wrote the proposal. He probably knew that it would be more impactful using this particular metaphor, which would likely rally together more people (poor Irish Catholics) against their wealthy landlords and England. Was Swift trying to stir up a little rebellion/revolution? I’m not exactly sure, but he was definitely trying to call out English and landlord oppression of the poor Irish Catholics.

I find the Gospel of Mary fascinating. 

This book basically tells the story of an instance when Jesus had given a message to his disciples, and of course, in his cryptic nature, it left the disciples confused and distressed. So Mary of Magdala comforts them and tells them not to worry; the disciple Peter asks Mary to teach what Jesus had taught her and they had not heard. My assumption is she does so for the next 4 pages. However, after she teaches them as she was asked, the disciples doubted Mary and challenged her, asking what would make her that much more favorable than them as a woman. Thankfully, Levi shuts down Peter’s challenging and instructs them to instead hear the word and go out to preach themselves.

This book has found multiple areas that piqued my interest. Although in biblical cannon, I’m personally not familiar with this instant, the fact the disciples were in disarray over a preaching and that someone had to step in to understand the teaching for all of them. Then the way the disciples instantly challenged her based on her being a woman. The author even notes that this story could lead one to doubt the legitimacy of the disciples as good preachers if they could be so dismissive of teachings simply because it came from a woman. 

Additionally, this book is missing eight whole pages. I comprehend the fact that it was found way back when, but the fact that three of the eight are part of her preaching is something that concerns me. My personal theory about this book is that maybe “someone” wanted to cover up and smother the stature of Mary of Magdala, so after it was written, they destroyed or hid the pages to never be seen. We will never know the importance of those missing eight pages and what effect they could’ve had on Christianity as it grew.

From what I understand, this book tells a Christian story from Judas’ perspective. Additionally, for some reason I cannot wrap my head around, Jesus speaks cryptically for most of this book.

It starts with Jesus at dinner with his disciples for the eucharist. After a humbling of the disciples, Jesus pulls Judas to speak privately. But in this private conversation, Jesus tells Judas he will tell him everything, then walks off; I assume entirely from the group to speak with a completely different group. Which frustrated me at first, but he does tell Judas everything over a period of unknown time in the book. We skip to a different day where the disciples tell Jesus about a vision of a temple, and Jesus basically says people will do what people will do, and if that be the wish of the Lord, then so be it.

After the temple conversation, Judas begins to show genuine curiosity about humanity, how it was created; there’s a conversation of cosmos, chaos, and the underworld, and the destiny of Adam and humanity, all of which made little sense to me… 

Judas asks about a house almost described as the top of Mount Olympus, just a location not made for the typical person, that Jesus tells him to not concern himself with because Judas could never get in. At the end of their conversation, Judas tells him to follow his star, although Jesus informed him that his star was cursed. 

As for where I stand regarding this book, although half of the book makes no sense to me, it is very interesting to see Judas as a person who concerned himself with humanity and what Jesus has to say versus the idea that he simply betrayed Jesus. What I find even more fascinating is the fact that this is unrecognized as well as on the “Banned Books” list. What harm did it do to see a perspective of Judas as something other than a traitor? The book even speaks on how Judas is destined to betray Jesus, so why ban it?

I theorize that because it shows Judas as a person who was destined to a fate, there is a fear that readers will see Judas not just as a villain.

In the mainstream orthodoxy of Christianity, Judas is one of the most hated figures, perhaps second only to lucifer, because betrayal of Jesus. But the Gospel of Judas reframes not only Judas’ betrayal, but the entire Biblical mythology. The text begins with the disciples giving a prayer of thanksgiving, when Jesus sees this, he begins to laugh. The disciples question why he’s laughing. He responds that they are praying to praise their god. The disciples are confused because they believe Jesus is the son of their god; He refutes them by claiming that no-one among them will know him. This is a clear departure from mainstream christianity where Jesus is recognized as the son of God, the same god that the disciples are worshiping. This claim angers the disciples and he invites them to face him, they all refuse except Judas; He stands and tells Jesus that he knows who he is and where he came from. Later, the other disciples relay a vision they had to Jesus. In this vision, sinful priests invoke Jesus’ name while giving offerings. Jesus reveals that the priests in this vision are the disciples leading people astray while serving their god. Jesus then tells them that all generations of humans will die except for one, whose souls will be taken up. Judas then tells Jesus of his vision where he is being persecuted by the other disciples. Jesus tells him that although he will be cursed by the generations, he will eventually rule over them. Jesus goes on to reveal the truth about creation; he tells Judas that the invisible spirit is the true god while the rebellious Yaldabaoth is the creator of humans and the god that the disciples mistakenly worship. But Jesus laughs because Yaldabaoth and his creations will eventually be destroyed. Jesus then commands Judas to betray him, because death will set his spirit free. This text does much more than just reframing Judas’ betrayal, it recontextualizes the entire biblical mythology by posing the god of the old testament to be an illegitimate imposter.

While reading the Gospel of Judas, I couldn’t help but wonder at how Jesus acts while amongst his followers, continuously expressing amusement at their ignorance and attempting to instruct them on how to better themselves. Throughout the text, Jesus literally laughs when his disciples get something incorrect before responding to their questions with allegories or prophecies that they do not or cannot yet understand. This image of Jesus conflicts with the one I was raised with, as He does not act as the all-knowing Son of God, but more like a snarky teenager who just discovered adult entertainment flaunting their knowledge in front of friends. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas had little reason to portray the Savior of Humanity in such a way unless they specifically wanted sympathy to go towards the one who led Him to His downfall. Therefore, I considered the motives behind this reading, questioning who wrote it, when, and why.

Another part of this Gospel that confused me was the Apostles’ vision of a hedonistic, sinful temple dedicated to Jesus, as I have never heard of such a thing before. Moreover, Jesus’ response did not make sense to me, as it seemed to imply his own disciples would prompt such a scenario to occur. Again, it made me consider who the author was and why they portrayed both Jesus and his disciples in such a manner.

Something I found very difficult for this reading was how much my own biases interfered with my understanding as well as how much of the original text was missing, thereby preventing full understanding. Having attended both Catholic and Christian schools, I thought my perspective of Christianity would match the portrayal within this Gospel, but that was certainly not the case. I was baffled by Jesus’ actions and slightly offended by the idea that Judas would receive special conversations while his fellow disciples were mocked for attempting to share their insights. Overall, the Gospel of Judas is something I believe requires further study, and I look forward to hearing from my classmates on the subject.

Mary of Magdala reminds me of the poet Sappho, a historical figure of whom very little is known, and what is known is exaggerated. Before reading her gospel, I had barely heard of Mary of Magdala, only thinking that she was one of the women who followed Jesus around like groupies do with boy bands in the modern day. Now I can say my understanding of her character as well as the common interpretation of her role in early Christian history is incorrect; Mary of Magdala should be considered one of Jesus’ trusted disciples, not a mere follower, but someone who helped shape Christianity.

Focusing on the words within this recovered gospel, I want to note how Peter was the first to ask Mary to share what Jesus taught her while also being the one of the two Apostles that doubt her word. Specifically, he reminds Mary how Jesus loved her more than any other women, something that makes me wonder about the original wording as well as possible translation mix-ups. In an earlier class I looked at the original Koine Greek meaning of words within the Bible compared to the modern English translation, which revealed a few misleading terms that could have been translated to mean something else entirely. As the Bible has changed quite a bit over the past millennia, I wonder how exactly the Gospel of Mary has been altered.

Referring back to Peter naming Mary the woman the Savior loved most, I wonder whether Peter could have said Jesus loved Mary more than any man, as in human being, in his original statement. This would transform interpretations of Mary as well as the intention behind Peter’s request. If Peter asked Mary for her wisdom, knowing she was Jesus’ most loved person on Earth, then one reason for him to question her is jealousy. If Mary is discredited in front of Jesus’ Apostles, if the other disciples doubt her word, then they might also doubt the relationship Mary had with Jesus. As seen in the text, Andrew questions Mary on whether Jesus would say the things she mentions, while Peter goes directly to questioning whether Mary should be trusted as a woman, given Jesus surrounded himself by men he trusted, men he told everything else. Therefore, I think it would be interesting to look into the translations of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, and how else the original text could be interpretated.

The Gospel of Mary is an unfinished work, and the missing pages may be lost forever. These missing pages make it hard to grasp a full understanding of the text and what exactly caused Peter’s change in attitude towards Mary. In the beginning, Peter starting out encouraging Mary to teach to other apostles; however, after the full retelling, Peter’s attitude completely changes. He gets angry, questions Mary, and places doubt upon her story mostly because she is a woman. Since Peter acts drastically differently than he is seen prior to Mary’s retelling, this leads me to question if there was something in the missing pages that specifically angered him.  

Additionally, I found it interesting that in this text, Jesus describes sin as something produced by the human being. In my experience with Christianity, this idea isn’t common. This difference in definition could dramatically change the way sinning commonly is viewed. This is because the gospel seems to state that sin comes from an inner force, while traditionally, it can be stated to come from an external force.

This gospel also offered a new perspective on Mary. Mary is portrayed as a leader and someone knowledgeable. While all the male apostles are weeping and scared after Jesus leaves, Mary is calm. She is also seen as having special favor with Jesus. This idea is different than my original understanding because I was taught that Jesus didn’t have a favorite and that all apostles are equal. Seeing Mary, a woman, in a powerful role also interested me. This is because some stories in the Bible see women as less than men. Having Mary in an assertive and commanding position, along with the reaction of the other apostles to her in said position, demonstrates that respecting women and allowing them to take charge may be uncommon.

Overall, I believe The Gospel of Mary cannot be fully understood without the missing pages. These pages play an important part in the introduction of the story and Mary’s retelling of Jesus’s teachings.

Although nearly half of the Gospel of Mary was lost to time, it still manages to reveal a fascinating glimpse into the early days of Christianity and an alternative view of Biblical teachings that conflicts with modern day Christianity. The surviving text begin on the seventh page with Jesus discussing how all matter will ultimately return to its roots. He then goes on to discuss the nature of sin. Unlike in mainstream Christianity where sin is real and stems from disobeying God’s laws, the Gospel Mary claims that “there is no such thing as sin” and that humans produce ‘sin’ when we “act in the nature of adultery” and “love what deceives”, which ultimately leads to our undoing. In modern day Christianity, Jesus’ death is what provides freedom from sin; The Gospel of mary rejects this claim and instead states that salvation comes from one’s transformation back to humanity’s true spiritual nature. Jesus then departs and leaves his disciples to debate amongst themselves. Mary is invited to join the conversation where she reveals that Jesus gave her a vision. In this vision she witnesses a soul’s ascent to it’s final rest and how it overcame the seven powers of wrath. Some of the other disciples dispute the validity of her claims believing that her teachings are too strange and that Jesus would not reveal that knowledge to a woman. Levi comes to her defence and reprimands the disciples for attacking her. The disciples then go out to preach the words of Jesus, despite previous reservations. It is interesting to imagine a world where the Gospel of Mary made it into the biblical canon instead of being lost to history for centuries. Would mainstream Christianity be more open to women in positions in leadership? What would that mean for society at large?

Christianity is well known for its patriarchal outlook and values, often leading to the objectification, mistreatment, and poor views towards women. Even so, there are many scenes where Jesus rejects this notion, and a newly revealed Gospel has added to the evidence.

A wealthy woman who was one of the female disciples of Jesus, stood and watched his crucifixion, and valued in a higher manner than the men around her by the Lord and Savior. Well, in the sense that she received information that the other disciples did not. 

The idea of a women having visions and personal teachings from the Savior and Spirit caused disruption in the story and in our world.

I have a few of my own thoughts when it comes down to what could and couldn’t be true here. Also, how this relates to the hidden and hersey cry of the Gospel of Judas. It seems that there is a pattern recurring of parts of the bible supposedly being found that challenge norms and issues of the Church that are then cast aside, saying to not be true. 

In the Gospel of Mary, the Savior puts forth the idea that sin does not really exist. Instead, the idea of “sin” is more or less the importance and actions taken as a person that may contradict and hold back the body from being undisturbed. Sounds a lot like Buddhism to me.

In the Gospel, Mary receiving a perceived position of power and prestige by having a vision of the lord and being taught a different way of worship would be a push for women in our world to also have a claim of importance and power, upsetting the idea of patriarcary.

The text is not widely known and certainly not taught. I personally found it to be very intriguing to read and think about. Putting the thought that valuing the materials around us and our world is what keeps us from entering the higher heavens and the only way to get there is to enter true inner peace may seem easy but could potentially be misinterpreted. It seemed that instead of living a simple life, to let go of the world around us and focus on our own universal understanding is the way to reach peace.

The teachings given to Mary, looking inward and letting go outside, are quite similar to that of what was given to Judas, a different story. Both of these newer found Gospels however have been rejected as true or serious texts.

Much like the Gospel of Judas, if the teachings from this story were taken seriously, it could cause issues and shift in power dynamics of our world. Denying that sin exists, would limit the Church’s power over it’s people. Also, considering that the Church often promotes the worship of objects such as the cross, communion, and preachers themselves, a revolution that these practices are what holds people back from understanding the High Heavens would cause discomfort among many.

The Gospel of Mary is a quick take on offering a woman a powerful position by being one of very few followers who are able to fully comphrend the Saviors teachings, rejected as it is now.

The name Judas has been used since the early days of Christianity as a stand-in for words like betrayer, traitor, turncoat, all tracing back to Judas’s fateful betrayal of Christ in exchange for thirty pieces of silver. While the Gospel of Judas doesn’t refute this event, it does offers up a more empathetic portrayal of its much-maligned namesake.

Despite Judas often being portrayed as scheming or underhanded, this gospel actually shows Judas to be a person that Jesus can speak privately with, trusting him with information that he otherwise keeps from his disciples. In fact, Judas is portrayed as the calmest and most rational out of all of them, being the only one able to understand and trust Jesus near the beginning of the text. As a whole, his character differs so greatly from the traditional portrayal that it’s difficult to conceptualize them as the same individual.

One of the most stark features of this text is how it goes against traditional christian teachings regarding the nature of the world and the spiritual powers at play. The Gospel states that it was not, in fact, God himself who created Adam and Eve, but rather by an angel named Saklas, who along with his fellow angels were responsible for the creation of mankind. The text also speaks a great deal about different generations of humans, and how some are unable to truly understand God. There is a large significance given to numbers in Jesus’s recounting, which could point to numerology, another practice not used often in Christian teachings.

In all, The Gospel of Judas offers an alternative, more esoteric view on humanity’s origins, as well as portraying Judas in a far more positive light than usual, both of which could be reasons for it’s controversy. It’s interesting to note the similarities between this and The Gospel of Mary Magdelyn, both featuring a disciple who is often misunderstood or depicted poorly, and both featuring them being privy to a private lesson by Jesus, which they can understand to a greater extent than the other disciples. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence or not, but there are certainly connections to be made.

After reading The Gospel of Judas, my major takeaway was how the text contradicted Bible teachings.

One example is the difference in Judas’s character in the text versus what is in the Bible and accepted throughout society. Commonly Judas is known as one of the original disciples who betrayed Jesus for silver. Judas is seen as a traitor and today, his name carries the same negative meaning. This common portrayal of Judas is vastly different than how Judas is displayed in the text. In The Gospel of Judas, he is rendered as a confidant to Jesus. Jesus holds private conversation with Judas which suggests that Judas is the only original disciple that could understand the knowledge being given. It felt like Judas was enlightened by Jesus and his only goal was trying to fulfill what Jesus desired. As I read, I had a hard time wrapping my mind around the Judas who is portrayed as follower of Jesus and the traitor Judas is portrayed to be in Christian teachings.

Additionally, I noticed that the creation of humans in the text also differs from the Bible. In the text, it names many different spiritual beings and claims that Saklas is the creator of Adam and Eve. However, the Bible teaches that God personally created Adam and Eve. In fact, Adam is generally known to be the son of God.

The contradictions created by The Gospel of Judas may be the reason this text is considered “forbidden.” The immense disparities of Judas’s personality and the identified creator of humans could lead to Christians and the church rejecting the gospel and all its content. Moreover, if accepted, this gospel could change the confidence placed into the Christian church. Specifically, the text could challenge the trust put into the Bible since there are many differences between the two. This could lead Christians to doubting their beliefs and teachings.

In conclusion, The Gospel of Judas presents contradictions to Christian beliefs.  Common teachings about Judas’s character, and the creator of Adam and Eve are brought into question. When foundational beliefs are brought into question, believers can experience tension and uneasiness. These feelings can lead to the gospel being cast out and fully rejected.