The Gospel of Judas - An Exercise in Proving Too Much

The much-hyped, recently discovered and translated "Gospel of Judas" has certainly given the Christian heresy hungry media fuel for their spin engines. But is there really anything that this manuscript can add to the critique of classical Christian? I suggest not, and taking this thing too seriously would actually be counterproductive to the stance of most skeptics.

The first thing to point out is that this is not an unknown piece of literature. It was referenced by Irenaeus around 180 AD, who wrote against it as an example of heretical Gnostic thinking. Having a copy of the document in our possession adds nothing to its authority. In fact, it only confirms its Gnostic character and demonstrates that Irenaeus was accurate in his assessment of it.

The second thing to note is that this manuscript dates to around 300 AD, and the original, from which it is assumed to originate, cannot be placed much before 180 AD. This hardly makes this "testimony" of Jesus a credible competitor to the canonical Gospels, which even most critical scholars place in the first century.

But let's pretend for the moment that the Gospel of Judas does represent a more authentic portrait of what Jesus was about and what Judas' role was in all this. Isn't this the idea being proposed? But if this is so, why stop at vindicating Judas as a good guy, why not look at what else this book claims Jesus taught as the truth about reality?

Let's just review a few excerpts from the so called Gospel of Judas.

The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.

Right off the bat this document distinguishes itself as Gnostic. Gnosticism teaches that there are deeper, hidden truths that only those in the know can comprehend or are worthy to receive. The mainstream Gospels document only the truth fit for the average man. Not a very egalitarian belief system, and kind of hard to falsify when it's based on sayings that are too private to make it into common oral and written tradition.

When Jesus appeared on earth, he performed miracles and great wonders for the salvation of humanity.

Uh oh, miracles and "salvation" talk. Even the Gnostics claim that Jesus was something beyond a merely inspired teacher. Liberals will have to look elsewhere for their support of the notion of a non-supernatural Jesus.

[Jesus] began to speak with them about the mysteries beyond the world and what would take place at the end. Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child.

This goes even beyond what the four Gospels teach regarding the humanity of Jesus. Gnosticism has real issues with a genuinely human Jesus, since it holds matter to be evil. Often I see the Gnostic competition of orthodox Christianity referenced as though it lends support for a more palatable Jesus. Certain Gnostic conceptions, such as our having the "divine spark," are attractive and the main point of focus, but what is forgotten in the shuffle is that the Gnostics did not craft a more human Jesus, they rejected His humanity and had Him fully divine. He might be described by some Gnostics more as a spirit having only the appearance of human form.

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.”

The Gnostics had Jesus preexisting this earthly visitation and arriving from the heavens. In many essential points of data they agreed with the orthodox writings. It was often simply a matter of detail and interpretation of what that meant. For example, here they would differ on where and who Jesus was prior to being "sent" to earth and in what manner and form He was sent.

[Jesus said], “What are [the priests] like?”

They [said, “Some …] two weeks; [some] sacrifice their own children, others their wives, in praise [and] humility with each other; some sleep with men; some are involved in [slaughter]; some commit a multitude of sins and deeds of lawlessness. And the men who stand [before] the altar invoke your [name], [39] and in all the deeds of their deficiency, the sacrifices are brought to completion […].”

Strong words against the priests! They seem to be committing sins and lawless deeds. Unfortunately, even this Gnostic writer has issues with men (the priests) sleeping with other men. No help here for the pro-homosexual crowd.

Jesus said, “[Come], that I may teach you about [secrets] no person [has] ever seen. . . . A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated. The Self-Generated said, [48] ‘Let […] come into being […],’ and it came into being […]. And he [created] the first luminary to reign over him. He said, ‘Let angels come into being to serve [him],’ and myriads without number came into being. He said, ‘[Let] an enlightened aeon come into being,’ and he came into being. He created the second luminary [to] reign over him, together with myriads of angels without number, to offer service. That is how he created the rest of the enlightened aeons. He made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number, to assist them."

It goes on to discuss luminaries and angels creating more like themselves, with Christ (called Seth here) being somewhere down the chain, and that humans are merely the creation of one of the lower-order angels, Saklas. This metaphysic is no better than the Christian model for those who are inclined toward liberalism. It is far more convoluted, in fact, and demonstrates only the radical difference between the Gnostic and canon documents, which have Christ being eternal and co-creator of ALL things in the universe. Gnosticism isn't a "deeper" truth; it is a different truth.

So, what does this "Gospel" prove? I think the most that can be said of it is what was expressed in this National Geographic News article.

"To today's biblical scholars, the Gospel of Judas illustrates the multitude of opinions and beliefs in the early Christian church."

While this is certainly true, it is not as though diversity was previously unknown to informed Christians. One has only to read the Church Fathers to see their writings against the various heresies. But the early date of the canon Gospels, their apostolic pedigree, their overwhelming support by the global church, and the fact that even most heretics used them as their starting point makes the eventual rise and defeat of diversity a mere historical curiosity.

It is truly ironic that skeptics will receive with open arms even the most spurious and eccentric of materials while going above and beyond the normal means of discernment for anything that smacks of orthodoxy.

On the Defense of Scripture

Question:
I find it hard to place my absolute trust in the bible because I thought it was highly edited 100+ yrs after Christ and translated too and that there were meetings of the Roman Catholic Church where they purposely omitted certain sections and things. Also, what about those hidden gospels that were found? Like the gospel of Thomas? Now maybe to a Christian insider all these things have obvious explanations, but you must understand to the outside observer like me, its all information, who should I choose to believe?

Answer:
I can't blame you for having some confusion here; there are so many books, TV specials, and liberal professors who have worked very hard to undermine confidence in the Bible. In fact, I'm going to predict by the content of your question that you have read the Da Vinci Code. But in spite of what Dan Brown and his fans may believe, his depiction of history is not even respectable by (even rabidly) non-Christian scholarly standards — there is such a thing as "good" and "fair" critical analysis, but that isn't it.

The problem that critics of the Bible have is that they do not have much to go on. It's not like they've found old copies of the four gospels that are radically different from what we have today. There are no old manuscripts in our possession that say things like, "Jesus showed compassion to the leper" rather than, "Jesus healed the leper" or, "I show you one way to the Father" rather than, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." And there are no "other gospel" manuscripts found that have been demonstrated to be from the first century or to be copies of something that existed at that time. Claims that the Bible has been tampered with are without empirical backing; they are simply assumptions based on "conspiracy theory" type thinking. The way it works is this: it is first assumed that the stories of Jesus couldn't possibly be true because of all the miracle talk, then an attempt is made to weave a tale as to how such miracles could have gotten in the text. And if any fairly old books, like the Gospel of Thomas, are found that have a less orthodox portrait of Jesus, then these are assumed to be earlier works. The fact that there is no time-tested and consistent story from the critics regarding what "really happened" in that first century (their story changes about every 25 years) is testimony that they are simply grappling with theory and not hard data.

There was a time in the past when critical scholars suspected that the New Testament (N.T.) documents were largely authored in the second or third century, but today most admit that they originate in the first century. I've even recently heard John Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar {a group of radically liberal "scholars"}) admit on TV that the gospels were written within decades after Jesus' death! And there is even less debate over the letters of Paul, most of which are taken to be from his own hand and are the earliest writings of all. This is a real problem, because Paul's writings contain the clearest of all presentations of classical Christian theology (the book of Romans is a theological masterpiece), which were not supposed to have "developed" until decades later. This is why modern critical scholarship is trying to find a way to drive a wedge between Paul and the other Apostles — his testimony is just too...Christian like.

Some of the reasons why scholars have been forced to admit that the N.T. materials are first century works are the following:

1) Manuscript evidence. There is, by far, better and older manuscript support for the N.T. than for any other work of antiquity. If we considered other secular writers of the same era (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch) we would discover that the most ancient copies of their writings that we possess are from more than 800 years after they were authored. In contrast, if we looked at something like the Gospel of John, we would discover that we have fragments of it from within 30 years after it was authored (presumably the late first century). And the Gospel of John is considered to be the last N.T. document written, so this dates the other writings even earlier! It is said that we have around 5000 ancient copies of the N.T. from around the Mediterranean in its source language — Greek (that is to say, not translations but direct copies). Most of these documents vary only in syntax or due to common copyist errors.

2) Early Church Fathers. Besides the biblical documents, we also have the writings of the early leaders of the church from all corners of the Roman Empire. It has been observed that if one took all the biblical quotes in these documents, one could reconstruct most of the verses of the NT. And their quotes compare well against the N.T. documents themselves.

3) Accuracy of the documents. There are stories of critical scholars who set out to prove the falsity of the N.T. documents, and eventually became believers themselves, by comparing them against the archaeology, cultural history, and literary styles of the first century era. It was thought that surely, if they were written in a later era, there would be technical slip-ups. Even those things that seemed to have been discrepancies have one-by-one, over time, come to be conceded as accurate. Wherever scripture can be tested, it usually comes out the victor. There are very few open issues remaining to be settled at this time.

4) Extra-biblical references. The Bible and the Christian community are not the only sources of information about the early church. Over time other Jewish, Roman, and Greek manuscript finds have been uncovered to support many points of data contained in the scriptures. For example: that Jesus existed, that He was tried and executed, that His followers continued after Him and claimed He was deity and resurrected, that they were dying for their beliefs, that Jesus' brother was the head of the Jerusalem church and was also executed, etc.

This deals (well enough for now) with the issue of those books we know as our New Testament, but what about those "other gospels," like Thomas, that were "left out" of the canon by the church? First of all, the idea that there was a council of the church that sat down with some 80 available gospels (as Dan Brown claims in his Da Vinci Code) and arbitrarily voted on which ones to include is a fiction. The closest thing to this are the various regional councils — most notably the Council of Carthage (397) — that simply "recognized" the commonly accepted list of books that had already been identified. The way that the "inspired" books came to be acknowledged was by perfectly reasonable and natural criteria, by which the other gospels that some people would like to squeeze in there (primarily Gnostic texts) fail to measure up. Here are some of the primary factors involved:

1) The book had to be a product of the first century church, and from those who were authoritative eyewitnesses to the action. If a book was from the hand of an Apostle, it was an automatic candidate. If it was from a sidekick of an Apostle (like Luke or Mark), or from those of the inner circle (like Jude or James), then it was a solid candidate as well. This is why the Gnostic books were so often written under the names of Apostles: to attempt to foster a sense of credibility.

2) The pedigree of the book had to be good. That is, there had to be high confidence that the book was actually from the time and author that it was claimed to be. We have various writings of the Church Fathers as a window into this dialog if we care to review their defenses. The backers of the Gnostic books failed to demonstrate a lineage back to the Apostles. And these books cannot be shown to be authored any earlier than the second or third century. Mention of such books in the writings of the Church Fathers (mostly critiques) does not even begin until later in church history. However, we do see some discussion about a few more reasonable candidates.

3) There were certain books that no one called into question, like the four Gospels, Acts, and most of the Pauline letters. Of those that were the subject of some debate, one standard of measure was that these should be consistent in theological content and quality with those having been already accepted. In comparison to the harmony of the four universally recognized gospels (which even the Gnostics didn't challenge) the others often sound like a tone-deaf choirboy. Here's one example from the Gospel of Thomas:

"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

4) Another more subjective criteria would be what I might call the staying power of the book. An inspired book would be expected to have a certain popular following among the clergy and be profitable in the lives of believers and the history of the church. Perhaps I could use the analogy of pop music, in that decades later it is only the best-in-class that tends to get playtime on the oldies stations. The Gnostic texts were not so much pushed and stamped out of existence as they were neglected and abandon. The wheat survived over the chaff. And when the Roman persecutors came a-knockin' in search of contraband Christian materials, the priests and bishops were less than grieved to hand over certain texts as decoys.

For more information on Gnosticism, you can see my related post here: Regarding Gnosticism

Long before those councils that formally recognized the canon listings we find writings of the Church Fathers that include each of their A-lists as well as their habit of quoting only certain books as authoritative. And the selections of these writers line up very well with the modern Bible. In addition, I would point out the Muratorian Canon from the second century, which is an official catalog of accepted texts along with their historical setting. It was probably compiled to counter a fellow named Marcion, who was making an effort to discard and edit books that didn't fit into his theology (he didn't like the O.T. and any N.T. books that made positive reference to it). In fact, as it turns out, almost all the "disputed" books were ones that eventually DID make it in to the canon; the church eventually did more including rather than the often imagined excluding. The few that were seriously debated, yet not chosen for inclusion (like the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas), are available to review today, and it's fairly plain to any who read them why they were bypassed (not that they contain contradictory theology, but simply don't fit well within the 4 criteria I mention above). Of Thomas and the other "hidden gospels" — never even considered.

Let me end this point with a lengthy quote from the church historian Eusebius who wrote in his Ecclesiastical History (325 AD) the following assessment. I include it because it is an early writing from a highly respected source that well summarizes much of what I have been saying here (not that it is the only or earliest such text).

First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John]; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the first former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John ... Among the rejected writings must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews ... all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.

So far I've dealt with the origin of the text, the reliability of its transmission, and the selection of the canon, but what about our modern translations? Did the contents of the original writings get accidentally or intentionally corrupted during "all those translations and retranslations?"

First, remember that I mentioned that we have numerous very old texts in their original language. This means that if anyone happens to know the Greek language of the time (or Hebrew, in the case of the O.T.), then they do not even need to concern themselves with the various translations. The skeptical Greek scholar may compare these source materials against your average Bible translation for himself to see how faithful the translators have been. The translation issue is not one of the objections raised by informed critics; they are more concerned with the integrity of the early source language materials. There may have been times and places where translations were problematic, as in Martin Luther's case where the only available text for his German translation was the Latin Vulgate, but modern translators have a wealth of source language materials from which to work. And most modern translations DO begin with such materials; they are not simply translating translations of translations.

Our present translations are better than at any time in the past. Some target a style that is more technically accurate (like the NASB) and some attempt to be more readable and conversational (like the NIV), but harmony of meaning is rarely compromised in any (the "paraphrase" translations being the farthest from the mark). The bottom line is, there is good reason to be confident that what we read today in our modern Bibles accurately mirrors what the authors actually wrote. Of course, one can always argue that these authors were liars or mythmakers, but then some answer must be given as to why they would be inclined to invent a fiction that gained them no material advantage (unlike Muhammad or Joseph Smith) and cost them their lives to defend.

Jane Fonda's Gnostic Feminist Christianity

Awhile back I had heard rumors that Jane Fonda had become a Christian and was even attending Bible Studies at a Baptist church in Atlanta. By all available accounts, it seemed to be the real deal. However, you can imagine my confusion over hearing such reports while at the same time witnessing her anti-Americanism (even giving a nod to Michael Moore), feminist advocacy, and safe-sex campaigning. Well, I think that her recent interview with Beliefnet clears up a lot of the confusion. (Note: Beliefnet, itself, is no bastion of classical Christianity. Observe this vacuous article regarding the new Pope: The Pope's [astrological] Chart: A Willful Ram With a Spiritual Side)

Things seem to start out, for her and this article, promising enough:

Things began to change for me—as I think they do for many people—when I was in crisis. I think that the reason that that happens is because pain can break you open.

I was, utterly fascinated because [some of the Christians I was meeting] were smart people.

It was a somatic feeling that I was being beckoned, and I often felt that there was a light drawing me.

What I realized writing my book was that I had been empty since adolescence. I was learning to be satisfied by spirit, [whereas before] I had been trying to satisfy the hunger with other things.

And we even see a near brush with Biblical Christianity (though I've no guarantee that the Missionary Baptist Church that she was drawn in to was feeding her a protein-rich, balanced diet):

You know, I wasn't attracted to Buddhism although I really respect it. I wasn't attracted to Islam although I really respect it. Or Judaism. I'm attracted to Jesus.

I asked a friend of mine what did [being "saved"] mean, to her? And she said, "Well, to me, it meant going the next step." Well, boy, I mean, I'm a going-the-next-stepper! If there's a next step that can be taken, I'll take it. And so she had me read the Book of John and I was—I was experiencing grace at that time.

And then I began to go to Bible study class, and it didn't take long for me to think, "Uh oh, I've made a terrible mistake, this is not for me." I started going to churches and I fled. I just fled.

But then it all seems to sadly go down hill from there:

It wasn't a man in the sky! It was, it was: Come on! When we talk about—depending on how you talk about it—God, the Almighty, Sophia, a greater power, whatever—can't you understand that this is beyond gender? This is beyond anything that we can imagine. I mean, we can't even describe it. I understand why people latch onto gender things, but this is not a man. But because people have taken it so literally, it becomes gender and hence, hierarchal. And it just made my teeth grate. The more I studied, in the very kind of linear, fundamentalist way, the more I felt reverence leaking away from me.

And I read Elaine Pagels. I had read "The Gnostic Gospels" years before and it had really impressed me. In fact, I read it when I was first feeling God. And then I read "Beyond Belief," which is a book she came out with recently, and it had a lot of references to early Christians and Gnostic Gospels, and so I read the originals. In fact, I got the whole Nag Hammadi library and through that reading, I began to realize that I am on the right path. That Christianity is my spiritual home. This is where I'm meant to be. And that I have to discover for myself what that means.

I started venturing out when I finished the book last fall and discovered that there's a whole community nationwide of feminist Christians. I finished the book and then I heard about this book "Faith and Feminism" by Helen LaKelly Hunt, and now I've gotten to know her and through her, discovered that there's a lot of us out there. And it's like, "O.K., this was waiting. I needed to finish [the book] and this was waiting for me." And it's very exciting.

But perhaps there is yet hope:

And this is very new and so you know, it's hard for me to go into it in great detail because I'm only a few years into this journey. But I am riveted, I am fascinated with religious history, with Biblical history, with the early Gospels, with Robert Graves, King Jesus, I'm just, I can't get enough. This is a very real journey for me.

Could it be that she is on a journey toward authentic Christianity? Could it be that she is there, but is just so loaded with baggage and negative influences, and perhaps has received only a meager portion of the real thing thus far? Is this just another passing fad in her chameleon existence?

In all of my observations, I have failed to see even a hint of the idea that she understands the concepts of sin, repentance, and Jesus' person and work. And as long as she continues to flirt with major heresies, such as Gnosticism, and champion clearly un-Biblical moral causes, then I do not think I am simply being narrow or ungracious in assuming that she is outside of the camp. But who knows what lies ahead for her.

Regarding Gnosticism

Question:
Can you recommend resources that directly refute Gnosticism?

Answer:
A timely and relevant question in light of the revived interest in the Gnostic "gospels," due to the work of figures like Elaine Pagels ("Beyond Belief") and Dan Brown ("The DaVinci Code").

Let me first start with a brief summary of Gnosticism. Here's one I've found that will do nicely:

"A combination of the philosophy of Plato and Eastern mystery religions, Gnostics believe salvation comes from knowing (gnosis), especially knowledge of secret, hidden teachings. The early Christian Gnostics claimed their secret information gave them great insight to true Christianity. Some claimed to have wisdom that Christ gave in secret. There were (and are) multiple groups of Gnostics, some denying the divinity of Christ, others the humanity. Most identified the God of the Old Testament with the evil diety who they believed created the material world in which souls were trapped; they tended to revere those who opposed him."

Unfortunately, Gnosticism tends to be a rather broad camp, so if someone is attempting to advocate for this religious perspective they are obligated to first give an account of which particular flavor of Gnosticism they are advancing and why that one.

The authority of Gnosticism is grounded in its claim to be the true expression of the teachings of Jesus. That is to say, Gnosticism is allegedly the true Christian heir and what we know of as "orthodox" Christianity is simply the muddleheaded usurper and historical victor. Probably the best approach to answering Gnostic advocates is to make the case for the superior reliability and authority of the Biblical documents, which are most unfriendly to the doctrines of Gnosticism. Let me offer some helpful points to be made in this discussion.

Most scholars (even skeptical ones) now admit that the New Testament documents were authored in the First Century and come out of the heart of the Christian community at that time. There is zero evidence that the Gnostic documents are equally early works. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian) have traditionally dated them to the 2nd - 4th Centuries. They do not have the same pedigree as the canonical texts, i.e., there is no line of descent from the Apostles to these texts like there is for the canonical works (we have extra-biblical writings discussing authorship in fact).

The Gnostics themselves referenced the canonical Gospels and seemed to have no problems with them. It was just their mystical interpretations of them and their added theology that led them down the path of heresy. Since both classical Christianity and Gnosticism have these texts "in common," it seems only logical to look at these established texts to begin arbitrating the dispute. Unfortunately, when we compare these with the Gnostic "gospels" the discrepancies quickly become apparent.

Gnosticism is an absolute break with the Jewish tradition of the time of Jesus, while classical Christianity is a complement to it. If no theological ties can be established to Judaism, then we are essentially talking about the introduction of a brand new religion. The Gnostics were keen to avoid this, and for this reason they engaged in extensive historical and theological gymnastics to attempt to discredit or symbologize the Old Testament.

Christianity is often accused of plagiarizing its theology and stories from the ideas and mythology of the surrounding culture, but in reality it is Gnosticism that is far more in line with the mythology and philosophies of the Greco-Roman culture.

It is interesting to point out that Gnostic beliefs are even more incredible than those of classical Christianity. Someone opposed to classical Christianity may find, upon investigation, that ancient Gnosticism is not as palatable as they first imagined. For example, Gnosticism rejects the Christian idea of one good creator God in favor of a complex cascading series of heavens and gods (the Pleroma), with the creator of the material world being imperfect and even, perhaps, evil. Gnosticism asserts that matter is actually inferior and corrupt, and so they tended to be more or less ascetic (i.e., they denied the pleasures of the flesh). They had some rather strange views of Jesus. Most skeptics would like to merely humanize Jesus, but the Gnostics merely tamper with the nature of His divinity (e.g., He's some lower-order being in the Pleroma) or suggest rather arcane things about His humanity (e.g., His body was really just a ghost). The Gnostics were not very egalitarian. Not all had, or were capable of receiving, the hidden knowledge (gnosis). Even that knowledge which was required to attain "heaven" was rather tedious and cryptic -- far less encouraging and accessible than the simple Gospel of Grace found in classical Christianity. Additionally, feminist theology seems to be rather fond of Gnosticism, but this only makes sense if one is ignorant of, or intentionally suppresses, the anti-feminine tendencies of the Gnostics. Take, for example, this passage from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: "Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

And for one more example of the questionable character of the non-canonical texts, let me quote something from the "Gospel of Peter":

"And early in the morning as the Sabbath dawned, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region roundabout to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. Now in the night whereon the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre. And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea"

These kinds of accounts make the Biblical Gospels seem almost mundane by comparison. It is easier to see the Gnostic texts as being corrupted or mythologized versions of the canonical texts than vise versa.

Here are some worthy articles for further study on the issue of Gnosticism:

This one is a "short" article from one of our partner ministries:
http://www.probe.org/docs/gnostic.html

Here is a more exhaustive treatment of the subject in a two-part series from the Christian Research Journal:
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm

And if you are looking for more extensive materials I could recommend numerous books, but that would depend on what angle you are coming from on this issue. For example, if you need to defend the canon of Scripture over/against the Gnostic texts, I'd recommend books on the reliability of the Bible and the making of the canon by people like F.F. Bruce, Craig Blomberg, or Norman Geisler. If you simply wanted to defend against charges made in a book like The DaVinci Code, I'd recommend something like Richard Abanes', The Truth Behind the DaVinci Code.