Overall rating and opinion of "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler

[Sahansdal]

I am not sure this book is for me but I will give it a try. I wish that the sample was more than reviews of the authors work - although I was surprised that they were critical at points - so that we could get a better flavor for the authors writing. Also, it is pointed out that the author 'wants us to read the Gospel of Judas without a New Testament bias'. That should not mean that you can't take the New Testament into account. I feel that a true study of any of the books should take into account all of the books, otherwise you will have tunnel vision and the full picture will not present itself.

That is exactly why you shouldn't. We all bring preconceptions. It happened to ALL the scholars, even the non-Christians. It happened to me too, at first. I clearly remember the time I first realized that Judas was the 'sacrifice' in the Gospel of Judas. It was a real epiphany. I felt like I had reached a summit. I knew Gnosticism.
It was because I had a great teacher (Maharaj Charan Singh). rssb dot org

[Sahansdal]

I just finished the book. I am still working on gathering/organizing my thoughts well enough to write a thoughtful full review.
What I will say is that I felt like I should have been the target audience for this book - I am someone who has studied not only multiple different religions/mythologies, but also religion as a concept and organized religion as a social construct. I watched (more than once) the National Geographic special on the Gospel of Judas. I've watched specials on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can't stand Dan Brown, but did read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the work he based The DaVinci Code on. So this subject matter is right up my alley.
And yet, reading it, it didn't feel like I was the author's target audience. It felt like it was aimed very specifically at religious academics, which I am not. I work in academia, but am not myself any kind of academic.
As I read the book however, I found I had to fight myself from wanting a write an academic critique of the author's arguments. In most cases it was not to refute the arguments, but I wanted to see more supporting evidence, I wanted clearer lines drawn. I had all sorts of questions about why certain things were presented in the way they were, and would have liked to see some careful critique of the other interpretations of these scriptures, instead of simply dismissing them out of hand.

For the lay reader, I think this book would have been better served to have some information about the Second Council of Nicea, which basically put together the current Bible as standard, from the very many versions that were around at the time. That council chose to include some things and exclude others, so kind of a reminder that that our modern Bible has always been a political work, in addition to being a literary and religious one.
I have seen comments on this thread about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being "first hand accounts" compared to the others, which they were not. (This is not actually a fact that is in dispute, even among Christian scholars. We can date these accounts and the other accounts we have. And those dates were occasionally referenced in the book, but not made explicit.) Throughout, there were similar bits of history and context of which I am aware that I would have liked to have seen referenced, that I think would not only have made the arguments stronger, but also made the book accessible to many more readers.
This also means that in sections where I didn't myself have knowledge like that, I think there might be, and I really would have liked it.

Like others, and I believe as the author intended, since there was much reference to Eastern Mysticism, I got a strong impression of Buddhism. There were moments that deeply brought to mind Herman Hesse's Siddhartha, and the story of the Buddha in the garden.
I was actually more fascinated by the ideas of Jesus as a cover James and the concept that Jesus himself was never a real person, than I was of Judas as a cover for James, though that did lead me to wondering who the author thought James's Master was (maybe John the Baptist?). Or was James more like Buddha in the way he came to enlightenment/Master status?

In the end, I thought there were some strong arguments and some weak arguments in the book, but in all cases, I really would have liked to have seen more of the supporting evidence, especially to make this book more accessible to the lay reader. I find the purpose of the book, to make us think critically about our religious institutions and writings, and to be open to new information, extremely important, and I really wish it had been more accessible.

For myself, I would give this book three out of four stars. The subject matter is one I find fascinating, and as I don't have time to read the Gnostic texts or the Hebrew ones (or at least the ones that might be available to me), I really enjoyed the full passages pulled from them. I have enough of a background and understanding of the subject matter that while I was frustrated by the lack of more supporting evidence and clear lines, I was still able to follow the arguments and understand where they were coming from.
However, I would be very careful who I recommended this book to. I have a few friends who would be able to access it on the level that I did, but know many others who might find the arguments presented compelling, or at least incredibly interesting, who would get lost fairly early on because they do not have the background necessary to follow the book without the additional information.

Esp1975,
I have been looking for you! At last, someone with background enough to make solid suggestions and criticism. I love it! Yes, I intentionally skipped right to the heart of the matter -- the newly discovered gnostic and Essene material and what impacts they have. Did I not stress Dr. ROBERT EISENMAN? His work is crucial to understanding mine. In fact, he inspired it, and I told him so in person.

I mentioned right off, that RSSB and their book website, scienceofthesoul dot org are the go-to source of all the important spiritual guidance anyone needs. I mean that. You need to learn what the living Masters say. They are 'The Word,' not the Bible!

[preethakum]

Ever since I read the Dan Brown Novels, I have been intrigued by Religion and Christianity in particular. Although, non-fiction is not a genre I would be interested in, I would love to give it a read to know more about Judas and the history. It is quite interesting that the author has chosen a topic that presents such a drastic viewpoint to the one that is currently being followed. Kudos to the author for believing in his viewpoint.

[Juliesaraporter217]

The ideas were interesting, but I really couldn't get into it. I appreciate that Wahler was trying to make the readers think things differently about Judas and the story of Jesus' crucifixion. I like the idea that technically Judas was acting according to God's plan as well. But after awhile the sources got repetitive and I didn't think he used enough outside sources beyond the Bible and Apocryphal Bible to make his point clear that James the Just and Judas Iscariot were the same person.

[Sahansdal]

Ever since I read the Dan Brown Novels, I have been intrigued by Religion and Christianity in particular. Although, non-fiction is not a genre I would be interested in, I would love to give it a read to know more about Judas and the history. It is quite interesting that the author has chosen a topic that presents such a drastic viewpoint to the one that is currently being followed. Kudos to the author for believing in his viewpoint.

Thanks, Preethakum.

[Sahansdal]

The ideas were interesting, but I really couldn't get into it. I appreciate that Wahler was trying to make the readers think things differently about Judas and the story of Jesus' crucifixion. I like the idea that technically Judas was acting according to God's plan as well. But after awhile the sources got repetitive and I didn't think he used enough outside sources beyond the Bible and Apocryphal Bible to make his point clear that James the Just and Judas Iscariot were the same person.

There are precious few, and none are historical. All are literature, including Nag Hammadi and Al Minya (Gospel of Judas). But that is all one needs to show compositional dependency, and most importantly -- INVERSION. The Church was trying -- and succeeding -- to hide James.

[Claudia DL]

Just finished reading it. Gave it a 2 out of 4. I didn't hate it but it was frustrating at times. The writing style just irked me at times. I like line by line analysis but I feel like his brain was going somewhere and I was being left behind to do the thinking myself. A lot of, "so you sees" I just reacted with, no I still don't see. There were jumps in conclusions that just overreached, but I guess that symbolism stuff that the author didn't feel a need to explain is part of the Gnostic thought.

[Sahansdal]

Just finished reading it. Gave it a 2 out of 4. I didn't hate it but it was frustrating at times. The writing style just irked me at times. I like line by line analysis but I feel like his brain was going somewhere and I was being left behind to do the thinking myself. A lot of, "so you sees" I just reacted with, no I still don't see. There were jumps in conclusions that just overreached, but I guess that symbolism stuff that the author didn't feel a need to explain is part of the Gnostic thought.

Well, give me a for-instance. Maybe I can explain it better here. It is worth understanding what happened. Did you get that the Bible Gospel Betrayal story is an inversion of a gnostic original story -- of succession?

[TalonFox]

I started this book a while ago. I love the idea behind it, but I wasn't able to fully understand what was being said. That isn't to speak poorly of the author--he certainly did his research, but I think the target audience is very specific. A basic understanding of Gnostic beliefs is definitely a must.

Oh! That's good to know. I'm definitely someone interested in religious history but I'm not particularly well versed in it either. I was having the hope that this book gave a better understanding, than just jumping into the topic with no prequel. Thank you for the comment! I think I will still attempt to read it.

[Sahansdal]

I started this book a while ago. I love the idea behind it, but I wasn't able to fully understand what was being said. That isn't to speak poorly of the author--he certainly did his research, but I think the target audience is very specific. A basic understanding of Gnostic beliefs is definitely a must.

Oh! That's good to know. I'm definitely someone interested in religious history but I'm not particularly well versed in it either. I was having the hope that this book gave a better understanding, than just jumping into the topic with no prequel. Thank you for the comment! I think I will still attempt to read it.

Talon,
I have what you want. The Bible Says Saviors -- Obadiah 1:21 ... on Amazon

[The_book_of_t]

I haven’t read this book and I’m not sure I intend to. From a young age I've actively avoided religion for personal reasons and I don’t tend to read books based on religious beliefs or ideology. Saying that, I’m not opposed to a book that allows for someone like me to understand the grounds of another’s religion as I like to change my personal views and opinions occasionally. So, I guess my question is, how is religion discussed In this book? Is it a little dose of ideology? Or even a full blown study?

[Sahansdal]

I haven’t read this book and I’m not sure I intend to. From a young age I've actively avoided religion for personal reasons and I don’t tend to read books based on religious beliefs or ideology. Saying that, I’m not opposed to a book that allows for someone like me to understand the grounds of another’s religion as I like to change my personal views and opinions occasionally. So, I guess my question is, how is religion discussed In this book? Is it a little dose of ideology? Or even a full blown study?

Religion is incidental, really. It is about NEW information correctly interpreted. It is a bombshell, for sure.

[dragonet07]

As a former student of English literature (I have a Bachelor's in English with emphases in Literature, Criticism, and Theory and Creative Writing), I was quite fascinated by Robert Wahler's take the story of Judas. For someone who claims to only be a "retired farmer from Hawaii" (at least in the conclusion), he conducted his close reading of the scripture in a very comprehensive manner. Mind you, I did not agree with all of his conclusions--as I am agnostic, these disagreements are based only on what I perceive to be flaws in his argument rather than my personal religious beliefs--but I think that he lays out a well thought out analysis from a literary study perspective. I do, however, feel that he drifts into the trap of authorial intent in his conclusion; to me, he seemed to be making assumptions as to what the authors of the New Testament were trying to do, i.e. purposefully overwrite Gnostic teachings to meet selfish ends, and that is something which I generally like to avoid in these sorts of studies.

I would probably give the book 3 out of 4 stars, taking away one star mostly because of the use of authorial intent and what I felt to be a bit of a condescending tone towards biblical scholars. I have a person or two in particular I would recommend it to, but I'd be rather hesitant to recommend it to anyone else because I know how vile people can get about religion, not to mention how passionate some people get when discussing their interpretations of certain books, even if they are not religious texts. It's a rather toxic combination that one must handle with care.

[Sahansdal]

As a former student of English literature (I have a Bachelor's in English with emphases in Literature, Criticism, and Theory and Creative Writing), I was quite fascinated by Robert Wahler's take the story of Judas. For someone who claims to only be a "retired farmer from Hawaii" (at least in the conclusion), he conducted his close reading of the scripture in a very comprehensive manner. Mind you, I did not agree with all of his conclusions--as I am agnostic, these disagreements are based only on what I perceive to be flaws in his argument rather than my personal religious beliefs--but I think that he lays out a well thought out analysis from a literary study perspective. I do, however, feel that he drifts into the trap of authorial intent in his conclusion; to me, he seemed to be making assumptions as to what the authors of the New Testament were trying to do, i.e. purposefully overwrite Gnostic teachings to meet selfish ends, and that is something which I generally like to avoid in these sorts of studies.

I would probably give the book 3 out of 4 stars, taking away one star mostly because of the use of authorial intent and what I felt to be a bit of a condescending tone towards biblical scholars. I have a person or two in particular I would recommend it to, but I'd be rather hesitant to recommend it to anyone else because I know how vile people can get about religion, not to mention how passionate some people get when discussing their interpretations of certain books, even if they are not religious texts. It's a rather toxic combination that one must handle with care.

Dear dragonet07: Thank you for the kind words. Would you be willing to tell that to April DeConick? Ha. These scholars need a wake-up call. The non-religious have a better chance of understanding this. It really has more to do with simple comparative analysis than anything religious. Put a review on Amazon?

[Erin Painter Baker]

I haven’t read this book and I’m not sure I intend to. From a young age I've actively avoided religion for personal reasons and I don’t tend to read books based on religious beliefs or ideology. Saying that, I’m not opposed to a book that allows for someone like me to understand the grounds of another’s religion as I like to change my personal views and opinions occasionally. So, I guess my question is, how is religion discussed In this book? Is it a little dose of ideology? Or even a full blown study?

I would tell you that "religion" is not discussed in this book. A religion is. Christianity. And if you see other threads on this book, there is the theory that the arguments made in the book could mark the end of Christianity. (Spoiler: That's not going to happen.) However, this book does argue, based on a close reading (and slightly different translation) of the newly found Gospel of Judas, for a completely new interpretation of the Christ/Judas betrayal story line, in that the argument is, Judas did not betray Christ, and Christ was not sacrificed (hence the argument for the end of Christianity). Instead, Judas was the sacrifice, but not his life, but his sinning life. Kind of like being reawakened as a Buddha.

I would actually argue that the book would benefit substantially from a more robust discussion of religion in general, specifically morehistory of the Christian Church, and a more thorough explanation of Gnostic/Eastern Mysticism beliefs.