Customer Reviews

Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity?

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The standing joke about Tom Wright goes like this: An inquiring student gives Dr Wright a call. His secretary says, "Sorry, but he is busy writing a book". To which the student caller replies, "That's OK, I'll hold".

NT Wright is one of our most prolific New Testament scholars. It seems just a few months ago the media broke the story about the discovery of the so-called Gospel of Judas. And here we have a major critique of the find and the claims surrounding it.

The gospel was in fact discovered three decades ago, but for various reasons, was only made public in April of 2006. The media made much of it, and it tied in nicely with the film release of the Da Vinci Code. Both were over-hyped and cast aspersions on the canonical gospels and the real Jesus. And both fed into conspiratorial claims about church cover-ups and the need to reinvent Christianity.

Here Wright takes on the hype and the search for an "alternative Jesus". He demonstrates that this new find offers very little to our understanding of Jesus, and shows how far apart Gnostic teaching is from biblical truth claims.

The document in question, a Gnostic gospel, is authentic, but from third or fourth century Egypt. Like other Gnostic writings, this Judas document presents an unbiblical dualism: this world is evil and needs to be escaped from, and a secret knowledge (gnosis) will help one to achieve that. Jesus and the early disciples, by contrast, taught that God's kingdom was breaking into this world. While this material world is in need of restoration, it is not evil in itself. Indeed, God created it, and will one day recreate it altogether.

In orthodox Christianity, the goal of salvation is the redemption of this world, along with the resurrection of our bodies. In Gnosticism, the aim is to escape this evil material world. Thus the biblical gospels are this-worldly, while the Gnostic gospels deny this world. The message of the two are worlds apart.

And so too is the dating. The canonical gospels are early (written within a generation of the lifetime of Jesus) while the Gnostic gospels are late (second and third centuries). And the genre differs as well. The canonical gospels are sustained narratives, while the Gnostic writings are usually loose collections of teaching. While the Gospel of Judas is a bit different, it still is closer to the latter than to the former.

Wright correctly points out the irony of modern-day scholars trying to persuade us that the Gnostic gospels were radical alternatives to the `conservative' canonical gospels. Quite the opposite. The New Testament message was truly radical, and resulted in suffering and death. The Gnostic message was similar to the mystery religions of the day, and Gnostics rarely faced persecution for it.

In other words, "the Gnostics were the cultural conservatives, sticking with the kind of religion that everyone already knew". In contrast, the orthodox Christians "were breaking new ground, and [were] risking their necks as they did so".

So why are certain scholars so intent on promoting Judas and other Gnostic ideas and writings? Suggests Wright, the desire to champion even bizarre Gnostic texts over against the canonical writings "has more to do with social and religious fashions in North America than with actual historical research".

Gnostic beliefs fit very well into the American and Western fixation on self: the ideals of self-discovery, self-awareness, self actualisation, and self-salvation. They certainly make far lesser demands on people than do the radical requirements of Christian discipleship. Indeed, such Gnostic leanings, whether ancient or modern, have nothing to do with biblical Christianity.

In sum, the Gospel of Judas, like the other Gnostic writings, is totally incompatible with the New Testament gospels. They differ in genre, theology and time of writing. If the claims of the former are true, then Christianity (and Judaism) cannot be true. Conversely, if the biblical version of events is correct, then the Gnostic perspective must be wrong.

Fads and trends in theology will continue to plague us. But the everlasting gospel is not so easily disposed of. A debt of gratitude must be accorded to NT Wright for making these distinctions so clear.

N. T. Wright's scholarly works are often ponderous tomes characterized by forty-word sentences, endless paragraphs, and an exasperating delay in getting to the point. This slim volume does not share those faults. Quickly, clearly, and concisely, Wright takes aim at the recent popular fascination with Christian gnosticism and the small group of scholars who have been at the forefront of this well-publicized effort to re-imagine the origins of Christianity. In his own polite way, Wright is saying, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

The occasion for Wright's salvo is the recent publication of "The Gospel of Judas," a second-century gnostic tract that surfaced about thirty years ago but was held back from publication as its various owners tried to maximize its financial payoff. Now that the gospel has finally seen the light of day, it has been the subject of several popular works and celebrated as providing important new insights into Jesus, Judas, and early Christianity.

The highlight of the gospel is the claim that - contrary to the New Testament - Judas was the apostle who understood Jesus best, and was in fact ordered by Jesus to turn Jesus over to the authorities. The purpose of this was to hasten Jesus's death so that his spirit could be liberated from the confines of his mortal and corruptible body. This is in line with the core gnostic belief that the world was created by an inferior, malevolent god or demiurge, and that salvation consists in liberating the spirit from its connection to matter.

Authors such as Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and Marvin Meyer have popularized the idea that the gnostic writings provide a legitimate alternative to the New Testament portrayal of Jesus and Christian origins.

"Nonsense," says Wright. He points out that the scholarly consensus still overwhelmingly places the gnostic writings at a minimum of 50 to 100 years later than the writings collected in the New Testament, and that there is no reason whatsoever to think that the gnostics had a better understanding of Jesus than the authors of the New Testament.

Quoting some of the more incomprehensible and pretentious passages of "The Gospel of Judas," Wright questions whether all this talk of "aeons" and "archons," and the gnostic contempt for material reality, is really as in tune with contemporary sensibilities as the popularizers claim. Wright accuses them of presenting a sanitized version of gnosticism as well as a false characterization of early, mainstream Christianity. I think he is pretty much on the mark.

If I have a quibble with Wright, it is in his generalized claims about the contempory Christian Left and the Religious Right. He accuses both of escapism into a world of private religious experience and of a failure to contend against the "principalities and powers" of this world. Notwithstanding elements of escapist New Age-ism on the Left, and Rapture-ism on the Right, I think Wright is wrong about both the Christian Left and the Religious Right. I think both are very concerned with real-world issues, with practical concerns, and with politics. Both, in their different perspectives, are confronting what they regard as the "principalities and powers" of the world, even if they don't agree on what the principalities and powers are.

Moreover, Wright never specifies what he thinks an authentic Christian engagement with the "principalities and powers" would entail. For example, he seems to oppose the American war against Saddam Hussein, so is he therefore a pacifist? Or does he just oppose this specific war? And what is the authentic Christian response to brutal dictators, in Wright's view? And what is the authentic Christian view on gay marriage, or homosexuality, or pornography, or abortion, or Islamo-fascism, or any other issue which divides Left and Right? Wright does not tell us. He assures us that Left and Right are wrong, but never tells us what the Middle should do. Nor does he quite come to terms with the fact that the representatives of Christian orthodoxy - both secular and religious - committed many historical acts which Wright would in no way countenance. If escapism is a vice, real-world engagement also carries its dangers. How does one change the world without getting one's hands dirty?

Those quibbles aside, I can recommend this book to anyone who is still on the fence regarding the significance of Christian gnosticism. People who read Wright first might save themselves the trouble of reading - and being taken in by - a lot of nonsense emanating from scholars who should know better.

N T Wright, one of the world's greatest biblical scholars, tosses aside his usual calm and comes out swinging in "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus". He is clearly sick and tired of certain group of American scholars, the ones who claim there were all sorts of early Christianities, and, frankly, the one we ended up with was certainly not the best choice.

So, for once, Wright is naming names and taking no prisoners.

Wright's book is based upon "The Gospel of Judas" which was released with such great fanfare last Easter. No doubt you, too, had a laugh when that great biblical magazine, the "National Geographic", published a huge article on "The Gospel of Judas". And remember all those newspapers declaring darkly that "Judas" would shake the belief of those who still clung to Christianity?


Oh please. It was just another late Gnostic text, and, as usual, poorly written and with rambling idiotic passages about aeons. Yet the usual suspects--I mean scholars--made false claims about the importance and meaning of "The Gospel of Judas".

Wright doesn't exactly call Marvin Meyer, Elaine Pagels, and Bart Ehrman liars, but he comes thisclose. Most books about biblical scholarship are pretty tame. Not this one. Expect to enjoy yourself as you watch Wright tear Meyer, Pagels and Ehrman to pieces.


Some instances bound to make you smile: Meyer and Pagels "try to use the motif of laughter to make this 'Jesus' appear friendly" (p 54-55), in direct contradiction to the fact that the text means something very different. It's about time someone mentioned how liberal scholars play fast and loose with the facts.


Then there's the instance when Wright calls Elaine Pagels' statement about Jesus "breathtaking" and notes dryly, "It could only be sustained by a systematic and sustained rereading, and in fact a radical misreading, of the canonical gospels" (p 81). Now that's how a
true gentleman calls someone a lying twit. Then there's Bart Ehrman's bizarre claims about early Judaism and Christianity while ignoring the obvious:that early Christianity and Judaism had much, much "more in common with one another than with Gnosticism"(p 115).

The argument about there being many early types of Christianity is nonsense. People weren't wandering around in 200 AD unable to distinguish between a Christian and a follower of one of the schools of Gnosticism. As many of the early church fathers acidly noted, no Roman made a mistake and tossed a Gnostic to the lions. No, the Christians were the ones being eaten and the Gnostics were those preening about their insight or moaning on about how the universe and flesh were evil. Astrology has as much intellectual merit as Gnosticism, which was merely an attempt to paganize Christianity.

Wouldn't you just love to know how Ehrman, Pagals, and Meyer react? You've GOT to get this book.

Anyone interested in early Christianity and Gnosticism should get Simone Petrement's "A Separate God", the most quoted, most respected book on the subject.

The Gospel of Judas has had its fifteen minutes of fame. It is but another in an endlessly long line of stories or documents meant to shake the foundations of the Christian faith. Like its many predecessors, it gave National Geographic and anti-Christian authors an opportunity to voice their dissension with the biblical story of Jesus. A book titled The Gospel of Judas shot to near the top of the bestsellers lists and nearly as quickly, shot straight back down. Still, while its popularity was short-lived, it allowed Bart Ehrman and other revisionists a chance to laud the epistle for its new insights into the life of Christ. Surely Ehrman forever cast doubt upon his credibility as a historian when he blathered, "(The Gospel of Judas) is one of the greatest historical discoveries of the twentieth century. It rivals the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi."

National Geographic describes the importance of the document in this way: "The Gospel of Judas gives a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, offering new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Unlike the accounts in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a reviled traitor, this newly discovered Gospel portrays Judas as acting at Jesus' request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities." A classically dualistic, gnostic document, The Gospel of Judas presents a Jesus who is seeking to escape from the corruption of this physical world and asks Judas to betray Him so He can be free of this wickedness. Judas complies and shows himself to be a hero, rather than a villain. No longer the betrayer, He is a faithful friend to Jesus Christ.

Renowned New Testament scholar N.T. Wright is the first Christian to my knowledge to write a thorough refutation of the teachings of The Gospel of Judas. Judas and the Gospel of Jesus is due for publication in October of 2006 and will be published by Baker Books. It is a short book, weighing in at only 144 pages, but provides a thorough treatment of the subject matter.

Wright is fair to this newly published document. He does not say that there is no value in The Gospel of Judas for surely there is, for it tells us much about the gnosticism that was a great opponent of early Christianity. It gives historians access to an authentic, original document. But it tells us nothing about the real Jesus and the real Judas. Those who would have us believe that this letter provides details about the real life of the real Jesus can be little more than revisionists. Wright shows that such people believe in what he calls "the new myth of Christian origins." This myth, popularized by men such as Bart Ehrman, has three main teachings: first, Jesus was not as the canonical gospels portray Him; second, there were a great many different varieties of early Christianity, and they produced a large number of different "gospels," all of which circulated among Christians more or less unchecked; third, when Christianity became consolidated in the fourth century, many teachings about the "true" Christian faith were rejected.

"Classic Christianity," he says, "has a lot more life and promise than have ever been imagined by those who propose the new Myth, or by those who offer newly discovered gnostic texts as the panacea for our ills. It is a shame that the churches have been so muzzled, so often self-blinded to the full dimensions of the gospel they profess, the gospel of Jesus himself."

Through this short book, Wright asks good questions and insightfully shows where The Gospel of Judas simply cannot be held as equal in any way to Scripture. He shows himself to be a New Testament scholar the equal of any involved in promoting this new gospel. While the document appears to be genuine, it is little different and little more significant than the multitudes of other gnostic writings which have come down to us, even two millenia later.

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that N.T. Wright, who has reimagined and reinvented many of the teachings of Paul (and thus Jesus), would be the first to make a stand for the truth against others who would seek to reinvent Jesus. Unfortunately, Wright's New Perspectives are glimpsed, even if only dimly, through much of the text of this book. Still, he offers a compelling response to Ehrman and others and one well worth reading. I would tend to believe that, for most people, The Gospel of Judas is best ignored. It offers little that would be of interest to the average person. For those who do have interest in it, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus will no doubt prove an interesting response to the irrational views espoused by those who wish to reinvent Christianity and to cast doubt upon Scripture.

New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright admits that when first hearing of the recently published Gospel of Judas his initial reaction was something on the lines of "Not another one of those gospels!" This was not to dispute the importance of the find for historical scholarship which Wright concedes is significant. It merely reflects his understanding that cranks, pseudo-scholars, and a gullible and willing press would turn the find into an attack on traditional Christian beleifs and use it to "prove" their were viable alternatives to the four gospels included in the New Testament. In this judgment, Wright has been unfortunately been proven correct.

Wright responds to the hysteria generated by the media coverage in Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth About Christianity? - a clear, concise exposition of what this new "gospel" is and what it is not. Those familiar with Wright's rebuttals of radical revisionist New Testament "scholarship" know that he does not suffer fools gladly and so it is the case he as he completely skewers the claims of those promoting this newly discovered text as challenging the preconceptions about the Christian faith. As Wright points out repeatedly, this text comes from a period nearly a century after the New Testament gospels and so while they can tell us much about what was going on in the gnostic movement, they can tell us nothing about the real Jesus and Judas.

Despite the fact that the various gnostic movements did not have the internal cohesion to put forward a unified doctrinal synthesis, Wright correctly points out that there were defining tenets that identified a movement as gnostic. The key among these were the following four points: the belief that the material world is inherently bad; the belief that the material world is the work of an inferior - and perhaps evil - god; the belief that salvation is achieved by escaping the material world for a higher plane of existence; the belief that the salvific escape from the evils of this world is gained through the knowledge provided by the group's leaders. Naturally, such an outlook would take a dim view of the Jewish emphasis on the redemption of the material world and thus would see the God of the Old Testament as the material world's capricious creator. Considering one of the claims against by contemporary apologists for the gnostics against traditional Christianity is its alleged anti-Semitism, Wright quite correctly replies that it was the gnostics who rejected any Jewish influence and the orthodox Christians who kept the link to Judaism alive and would identify the God of the Old Testament with the Triune God of the Christian faith.

It is in fact the anti-Jewish elements of gnosticism that make the Gospel of Judas possible. Given that they saw the Apostles' maintanence of the link to Judaism objectionable and their belief in a bodily ressurection as abhorent, there was an inherent desire to turn everything topsy-turvy. Figures such as Judas, Cain, and in some cases even Satan himself are turned into heroes while the Apostles, Moses, and the prophets become distorters of the true faith.

In analyzing the two possiblilties of Jesus founding a movement steeped in Jewish belief in the Kingdom of God or something akin to the gnostic view, Wright forcefully asserts the belief in a gnostic Jesus, when the evidence is weighed, as incredible and forced. The "spin" given to gnosticism is the creation of a new myth of Christian origins that gives pride of place to those outside orthodox Christianity despite the overwhelming evidence against it. It is in many ways a reflection a type of gnostic leaning that has infected American Protestantism for some time. It is an elitist view that places self-fulfillment over religious tradition and is manifested in both liberal revisionism and conservative individualism.

Wright makes a plea to avoid the errors in both ends of the theological spectrum. The trail blazed by modern neo-gnostics is one hewn of ignorance and merely repeats distortions of the message of Christ discarded cneturies ago. Yet those to whom these neo-gnostics oppose - the fundamentalist who cling to "prosperity theology" or "the rapture" - are no less distorters of the Gospel message. We must return to being the Church that "responds in gratitude and obedient faith to the powerful word that announces Jesus as the world's true Lord, and to discover in following Him and beloging to His sacramentally constituted family a new dimension of life in the world rather than to escape from the world."

N. T. Wright has proven again that he is the greatest debunker of revisionist movements within the Church. Much of this is no doubt due to the fact that among orthodox writers, he is among the most intellectually curious and willing to give unconventional ideas a fair hearing. Yet he is not one to suffer fools in silence and when faced with poorly researched theses that are presented merely to undermine confidence in the message of the Holy Scriptures, he is more than able to leave the follies of their supporters exposed. In Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, he not only debunks the idea that it presents anything authentic about Judas or Jesus, he also debunks the entire construction of novel new ideas on the origins of the Church. It is a powerhouse of a presentation that should be read by any seeking the truth on such "alternate" gospels.

N.T. Wright is a well-renowned biblical scholar who has done his homework. And this work shows, quite definitively, that there can be no comparison between the early four gospel accounts of Christ and the much later Gnostic versions. The book isn't that fancy, and I think many laypeople will get great benefit from this if they pay careful attention. Even though it's short, there were a few times that Wright's style lost me and I wasn't sure what he was really saying. But otherwise, I appreciate his work and think this will help close the door to those who insist the Gnostics are a better source than the gospels Christians have been reading for a couple thousand years.

Tom Wright, as few can, "quickly" responds in depth to the recently published, Gospel of Judas. He takes on the proposed "Alternative Jesus" and broadens our understanding of gnosticism, the gnostic gospels and their proponents. Another solid effort by Bishop Tom; very readable.

A very short, yet informative, work about the "controversy" about the newly-discovered Judas "gospel". Wright does a good job of steering the reading through the sensationalism and hype over what turns out to be little more than a late-discovered manuscript that offers nothing against the genuine gospels of the Bible. Short enough that you can finish it in one sitting, but still beneficial enough to see through some of the bogus Judas scholarship.

NT Wright does an exceptional job in this short exposition on Gnosticism and it's many, modern day faces. Making clear the very distinct differences between Gnostic and Judaic thought, Wright succinctly shows how the two philosophies are not, can not, and will never be, compatible.

Using his immense knowledge of Jesus' historical context, Wright delivers a thorough, albeit slightly short expose of the Gnostic beliefs. It isn't an attack on Gnosticism, but a simple showing of how the beliefs of the Gnostic community simply do not comply with the beliefs of the Jewish community, from which Christianity came.

One has to make a choice, argues Wright; either you choose to follow the traditional (and very historical) Jesus which we find in the Gospels, or you choose to follow the mystery teacher of hidden wisdom of whom we find in the Gnostic "Gospels" such as those of Nag Hammadi. You can't have it both ways, the two philosophies are so far apart at their core beliefs that you're simply pulling at straws to hold on to any conglomeration of the two.

Wright also goes on to show how the modern day media can't get enough of these so called "Secret Gospels." Anything to undermine traditional Christianity and they'll run with it. Sensational headlines abound and every year come Easter, some new book surfaces which claims to be the "end all" of Orthodoxy as we know it. Not surprising though, given that today nearly all popular media, news, etc, depict Christianity with no respect, while granting most all other religions a fair shake. Anything but Jesus of Nazareth, they say.

The verdict?

Wright argues, succinctly and logically, that the real Jesus, the Jesus of whom truly makes the most sense given all of the circumstances, lies not within some secret Gnostic divinity sent to free us from this evil world, but rather with Yeshua, the very Jewish, very historical person whom heralded the coming of the Kingdom of God with himself as the bearer of this vocation.

It is in the 4 Gospels, found in the New Testament, where we truly find the God - Man of whom so many seek. Jesus was Jewish, not Gnostic.

N T Wright cuts through the modern assumptions that the canonical texts were some how in error and that Christianity really started in some other way. This book deal with the conspiracy theorists who want to claim the Church has covered up the real truth about Jesus and have made him Divine in order to have power and control. Wright clearly shows how that the real compromisers of the truth were the writers of the so-called gospel of Thomas and the other Gnostic texts that privatized religion and tried to move it out of the political realm in order to avoid persecution from the state. Those who held to the message that Jesus is Lord and Caesar and would not bow to the "lordship" of Caesar were the ones that were persecuted and killed. The real cowards and compromisers were the Gnostics. Those who held to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and not least Paul were thrown to the lions, had their property confiscated, were fried alive on the hot seat and suffered abuse and death at the hands of Rome, while Gnostics, who had de-politicized the gospel, sat home writing alternative Gnostic views that would not call into question the powers of Rome. This is a great book with a message that needs to be heard over against the message that normally gets presented on CNN, Fox News, or History channel specials.