Sometimes
it's healthy to read an opposing view to your own. It challenges your
own assumptions and help you to understand why you believe the things
you do. It's also necessary to understand the opposing view if you ever
have to discuss the subject with someone who holds that view. Once you
are familiar with the opposing view, you can better explain your own
view and correct any of the other person's erroneous perceptions,
assumptions, and prejudices of your own view.
This particular book, "Judas and the Gospel
of Jesus" was written by an Anglican bishop (N.T. Wright), and I take
issue with some of his points made in the book. The author is clearly
anti-gnostic and pro-Orthodoxy. While everyone is entitled to their
opinions and beliefs, I have problems with some of the statements he
makes in his book which he declares are facts, when they are not. The
bad thing about this is someone who knows nothing about gnosticism who
reads this book won't know any better and may assume the author is right
because of his status as a bishop, which in Orthodox circles
automatically makes him an "expert" on anything Christian.
It's not his interpretation or opinions of the Gospel of Judas that
bother me, but the way he puts down gnosticism and all gnostics. Even
after he admits that there were different groups of gnostics with
different views, and states correctly that the Gospel of Judas is
specifically Sethian, he then proceeds to state that all gnostics
believe in four things which are clearly Sethian-specific: that all
gnostics are dualistic (not so); that YHWH is the Demiurge (again, not
all gnostics agree with this); that gnostics hate the world and look to
escape it (Sethian extremism again); and salvation is attained through
gnosis and the knowledge of the True Self (the only part I agree with).
Obviously the first three points don't fit the Sophian view at all, and
they didn't fit the Valentinians' either.
After spending most of the book, which thankfully is rather short,
bashing all gnostics (even though his disagreements are really with
Sethian views), he then claims that modern American Protestantism,
especially fundamentalism, is full of gnostic ideas and influence. I can
just imagine all those fundies who were reading along and gloating at
the gnostic bashing suddenly getting offended and defensive. His point
is that American Protestantism (as opposed to English or European)
focuses heavily on individualism and personal salvation as opposed to
"the common good". So not only is this author anti-gnostic, he's also
anti-American. If nothing else, this book is a very good example
of the dangers of generalization and bias.
