Customer Reviews

The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity

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

 

 

A clear and cogent book by an incisive and careful scholar. Easily accessible. The key issues are treated fairly and no prior knowledge is necessary in making sense of a potentially complex subject that matters to a considerable number of people.

I bought the book hoping for an open minded, balanced account by a young Cambridge theologian, of the Gospel of Judas and to learn something about Gnosticism. I was disappointed. Open minded is Dr. Gathercole not . I had the impression that his main reason for writing the book was to slate the Gnostics. He is patronising, mocking, even descending into derision, which I found unpleasant, and I finished the book no wiser about Gnosticism than I was when I started. He accepts the authority of Irenaeus and the other fierce heretic hunters uncritically, which, from a modern academic, I find surprising.

He explains adequately the history of the manuscript and I see no reason to doubt the adequacy of the translation even though it is not said who made it,(it is evidently not Dr. G. himself). What is lacking is a glossary of terms, or some basic description of Gnosticism, as the"aeons" or "archons" of the Gnostics have clearly little relationship to the OED definition, and without such basic information making sense of the Gospel is difficult.

There are many puzzling aspects presented by the text - why the betrayal, why Jesus favoured Judas with additional instruction, Jesus's relationship to the other apostles and several others which Dr.G. lists and discusses but without coming up with any consistent and satisfactory explanation or interpretation, which maybe is not surprising given his profound antipathy to the subject. He ignores, for example, to me the main difficulty with the betrayal -why it was necessary as Jesus had hardly hidden behind a bushel with his very public entry into Jerusalem, his preaching, his discussions with the leading clerics, his throwing the traders out of the temple; he would have been very well known; no need for a betrayer. He is fond of the sweeping generalisations "as every good Platonist knows..."; "no Christianity worthy of the name would...;" and so on which I feel sure would be contested - does he feel that he is a good Platonist?. His charge, that the writer of the Gospel was attempting to rewrite history and Christianity, I felt, was the pot calling the kettle black as it is what Ireneaus and the Church Fathers have been doing since the year dot.

If I had known beforehand from where Dr.G. was coming, with mind tightly closed, I would have avoided this book.