Author: Hollis Cobb

The article discussing the Gospel of Mary Magdala spends most of its pages telling the story surrounding the gospel and summarizes the gospel itself, though never directly quoting it. Not unlike the Gospel of Judas, this work spent many centuries lost to history, its story never included in the Bible, resurfacing and being further pieced together only in the last 150 years. However, despite the scrutiny the recovered text has been given, over half remains lost, its story still untold. The text itself is not included in the article, so it may not be as stitched and choppy as that of the Gospel of Judas, but the fact remains that historians cannot find the full message of such a powerful and unique early Christian writing.

The Gospel of Mary is special because it places significant weight on Mary Magdalene, its primary character, as a disciple. Other Biblical texts from this era do not have strong female characters, depicted as Mary is. In fact, Mary Magdalene is the only disciple present that understands Jesus’s teaching in this story, and the other disciples reject her for that reason, citing that Jesus wouldn’t give “this kind of advanced teaching” to her (King). The gospel also makes a significant point of the disciples’ fear, claiming that they were afraid they would “share his agonizing fate” (King). The feminist message is unique in the greater biblical context, yet, for this reason, the text was presumably put out of print due to the early Christian viewpoint that developed and eventually predominated the first millenia. The date of writing is in question as well, considering that the copies that have been discovered are presumably reprints of earlier editions. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a fascinating example of early Christian literature that was either been silenced or fallen out of fashion.

The Gospel of Judas tells the story of Jesus, unlike any other, claiming that Judas, in fact, was closest to Jesus, and that Jesus bestowed the true knowledge of the cosmos unto him. The Gospel even goes as far as to claim that Judas did not betray Jesus. Instead, Judas was following orders from Jesus to expose him to the Romans. The Gospel is heavily reminiscent of the film The Last Temptation of Christ which, among other things, depicts Jesus and Judas in an almost brotherly bond, confiding in each other and even weeping together. Works like these remain heavily controversial in the public eye. Jesus’s language shifts from other stories as well. Perhaps just a product of translation, Jesus laughs at the disciples often. In just a few pages, Jesus laughs three times at the comments or questions of the disciples. The disciples recognize this anomaly as well, and ask him about it. How often does Jesus laugh in the canonical gospels? The Biblical cosmos are altered in this gospel as well, seemingly much more Miltonic than from either published Testament, New or Old. Jesus consistently references many named angels (lower gods under the one true God according to Jesus) that ruled over Heaven and Hell and oversaw creation. Whether accurate or not, exposure to a diversity of perspectives such as the Gospel of Judas provides, gives greater context and meaning to discussions of Christianity and Jesus’s teachings.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692

Blasi’s discussion of John Milton’s Areopagitica and its modern relevance in regard to the First Amendment serves as a survey of the text and a detailed conceptualization of Milton’s primary points. The main argument of the paper centers around liberty and truth, and, though Blasi informs his readers that Milton’s ideas cannot be viewed in a secular context to benefit our modern understanding of free speech, Milton’s discussion of the evils of the Licensing Order of 1643 form a foundation upon which the ideas of free speech have since been laid. Milton’s argument is a sound one: anger toward the Roman Catholic Church aside, reading is a valuable skill, and exposure to a variety of perspectives, heathen or otherwise (excluding Catholicism of course), ultimately “checks the spread of sin” and strengthens the reader’s character (Blasi). He also argues that censorship, at least censorship that aims to completely prevent other viewpoints from entering a society, is wholly ineffectual, and the Licensing Order would fail, in any sense, to accomplish its intended purpose as a result. Blasi moves to discuss Milton’s views on conformity. Ultimately, conformity, in Milton’s mind, as would be created by censorship, would rot the English society, being an evil much larger and more dangerous than any written work.

In drawing conclusions, however, Blasi’s argument becomes less clear. Rather than drawing a unique thought on the modern relevance of the Miltonic text as promised, he instead repeats earlier insights about Milton’s intense religious bias and how Milton, as a result, is generally no longer applicable to our current view of free speech. Blasi opened his paper arguing that free speech is “under fire from several directions” (Blasi) and ends referencing the same point, yet fails to meaningfully tie this, supposedly the core of his discussion, back to Areopagitica. Blasi praises Milton for reminding us that “freedom of speech can be a powerful force”, a wholly unsatisfying conclusion to a fairly long dive into the text and context of Milton’s Areopagitica.