Huh? You seem to be claiming that the "spin" surrounding this gospel is that it's a big secret that it was labelled as heresy long ago. Yet how is this a secret if it's being connected to the gospel of Judas denounced by Irenaeus precisely for being heresy?
People who have blogged about the documentary have complained that Irenaeus was depicted in it sitting at an anachronistic desk--so how is it a big media secret that this was heresy if Irenaeus is shown in the documentary itself?
see here
If you read my article more carefully you will realize that my critique is of the media, not the documentry itself.
The stuff I've been reading in the newspapers such as the New York Post, The New York Times, and other such MSM outlets has been misleading to say the least...none of them explain what an apocryphal text is nor do they detail other texts which make equally far-fetched claims.
At most, the Newsday described what a 'Gnostic' was....
I have the suspicion that the reason why MSM covers this story in such a half-assed way is because it builds suspense for their pet projects, such as the impending film release of the Da Vinci Code. In other words, the media's game is that "if there is secret stuff out there that the church is hiding, then maybe the story behind the Da Vinci Code is plausible"
Furthermore, bishop Irenaeus, who got a single sentence in the NYP article, is depicted as an ancient inquistor- a heretic hunter out to get gnostics. No one has explained how this was possible in the year 190 AD when Christians held no power and were a fringe group alternatley being persecuted and executed from time to time.
To make a long story short, I am criticizing the way the newspapers have covered this story, not the National Geographic documentry. If you think that this story has been told accurately to the public, maybe you need to read the papers more.
Its all hype for the DV Code. The msm are all over excited, bless.
Commenting by HaloScan
