Posted on 03/21/2007 6:12:07 AM PDT by NYer
ROME (CNS) – Curiosity about the New Testament figure of Judas and a feeling that his reputation as the worst sinner in history "isn't fair, isn't right" led British novelist Jeffrey Archer to attempt a new version of the story.
Archer, presenting The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot at a March 20 press conference in Rome, said he is a practicing Anglican who wanted his new book to be backed up by solid biblical scholarship.
So he convinced Father Francis J. Moloney, provincial of the Salesians in Australia and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, to collaborate.
Father Moloney, who served on the International Theological Commission for 18 years when it was under the presidency of the future Pope Benedict XVI, provided scholarly criticism of the text and wrote the bulk of the theological notes and clarifications found at the end of the book.
The text in the gilded pages of Archer's book is organized into chapters and verses, like a real Gospel, with the words he attributes to Jesus written in red.
Archer's main thesis is that Judas tried to prevent Jesus' arrest and execution by enlisting the help of a scribe to get Jesus out of Jerusalem and back to Galilee where the Romans supposedly would ignore him.
In the end, the scribe betrays Judas, which means Judas unwittingly betrays Jesus.
Both Archer and Father Moloney doubt that Judas committed suicide, a story recounted only in the Gospel of St. Matthew.
The Benjamin Iscariot in Archer's title is Judas' fictitious son, who – years after the death of Jesus – finds his father living in an ascetic community near the Dead Sea. His father reluctantly gives his version of what happened to Jesus and the son writes it down.
Father Moloney told reporters in Rome that none of the things in Archer's account that differ from the accounts of the New Testament can be certain.
"Most of it may be improbable, but none of it – in my judgment – is impossible," he said.
Whatever really happened between Jesus and Judas, Father Moloney said, he believes Judas was a "tragic" figure, but not one who was forced to betray Jesus in order to fulfill God's plan for the salvation of humanity.
"We are all free to say, 'yes' and 'no,'" Father Moloney said, and that had to have been true for Judas as well.
Father Moloney said he agreed to collaborate with Archer because although he has written 40 books about the Bible they have "made little impact on the increasing skepticism surrounding the Christian church" while "deeply flawed and uninformed works like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion have become best-sellers."
"The message of The Gospel of Judas never betrays the teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels," Father Moloney said.
However, Father Moloney points out in the notes that in his description of Jesus as the biological son of Joseph and Mary Archer's interpretation differs from the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
Archer told reporters that he first brought the idea for the book to his publisher in 1992, but could not find the right scholar to help him.
The author said he was attracted to the topic because Judas was not the only disciple who failed Jesus.
All of the disciples ran away from Jesus in his hour of greatest need, and Peter denied Jesus three times, Archer said.
"All of them showed their human failings, but every one of them ended up as a saint. And Judas, who showed his failings, ends up as the most vilified person in history. It was the extreme black and white that annoyed me," he said.
Father Moloney said he hoped Archer's book would prompt people to read the New Testament and to understand that the gospels were not written "to communicate the brute facts of history"; rather they assemble historic facts "to communicate a message about what God has done for humankind in and through Jesus Christ."
He said Archer's book, although fictitious, gives "primacy of place" to the truth found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, while telling "the traditional story through the eyes of Judas."
Father Moloney also told reporters that he knows Pope Benedict "has an interest in the enigma of Judas" and would not be surprised to learn that the pope has read Archer's book.
So Father Maloney's motivation was his desire to write a best-seller?
This irritates me. Jeffrey Archer has been one of my favorite authors for over twenty five years.
And, what? That means it's bogus? Fr. Moloney is preaching a false gospel. I met a few of these educated morons in my university days ... their basic premise is that everything in the Bible should be considered bogus until proven otherwise, in direct contradiction to Dei Verbim, and indeed the entire 2000 year Tradition of the Church. (Not to mention 4000 years of Judaism before Christ). Historical criticism can be a useful tool, but it's the only tool some of these folks use, and it leads them astray.
Hey .... just like the DaVinci Code .... it's just a novel!
Well, there are is one big difference, Archer can write and he is generally considered to be one of the best "story tellers" in the world. I have tried reading some of Dan Brown's stuff and he is a horrible writer.
The other problem is that the left treats all fiction that debases the Church as potential fact that needs to be completely investigated. Archer is also a conservative and the left will do all sorts of things to validate this novel.
Archer first came to my attention when he was appointed deputy chairman of the British Conservative Party by Margaret Thatcher and I was initially impressed but he had a habit of getting into all sorts of scrapes and dubious situations and he appeared to be more of an opportunist than a principled conservative. He is a shrewd businessman who has always had a nose for a good story and it seems he's tapping into the da Vinci Code genre to play fast and loose with religious history to make a quick buck.
Distasteful as this is, I have more contempt for his Salesian enabler.
In reality, the British have really only had one true conservative leader ever and was Margaret Thatcher.
You're right, Archer has had his fair share of controversy (the perjury charge was very politically motivated though, it was designed to derail his ambition to be Mayor of London). However, his books have always been bestsellers no matter what, this one may sell a little more because of the subject, but I think the whole "Christianity is a sham" genre is pretty close to being played out.
It's a novel...this means fiction.
Yeah...forget about that fat guy with the cigar.
Why would you call Churchill a true conservative? because he fought the Nazis? So did Roosevelt and Stalin. Where they true conservatives?
What conservative policies did Churchill advocate?
Churchill was a staunch anti-fascist and later anti-communist (just like most American Democrats of that era). However, I am unaware of any of his policies that would be considered conservative.
Churchill was a member of Tory (Conservative) Party, for starters, until losing primaries. He was a strident anti-Communist, as opposed to Roosevelt who placed, as a precondition of our support of England, that England abandon most of its colonies. He was elected in 1924 as an independent, but with Conservative backing.
During the General Strike of 1926, he suggested that machine guns be used to kill strikers. He soon became a leader of a faction of conservatives who opposed Neville's weakness, breaking from Neville's party largely to be able oppose him.
Plenty of Republicans are and were liberals. Being a member of a mostly conservative party doesn't make you conservative. And in fact, Churchill left the Tories to sit with the Liberals in Parliament for many years (1905-1925). Among the policies Churchill advocated were government controls on the economy, and world government.
He was a strident anti-Communist
Was he really? He was an ally of Stalin in World War II, a war in which Stalin was clearly a co-agressor (invasion of Poland and the Baltics, annexation of Bessarabia, war with Finland culminating in the annexation of Karelia). After the war, he helped Stalin get even more territory than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave him (East Prussia, more of Poland, more of Finland, Transcarpathia).
It was Churchill who suggested that the Poles be expelled from L'viv and Galacia, and the Germans from Silesia, Prussia, and the Sudeten, giving Stalin moral cover for this barbaric act. This "only" caused the deaths of about 3 million innocent civilians.
as opposed to Roosevelt who placed, as a precondition of our support of England, that England abandon most of its colonies.
So the support of freedom and self-government for Colonized people is liberal, but continued overseas domination of foreigners is conservative? What is conservative about Empire? Churchill was so enamored of continued domination of enormous masses of Africans and Indians that he couldn't see clearly that Britain was far better off consolidating a hold on a few key territories with many British subjects or easily defensible key interests (Rhodesia, South Africa, Biafra, the Suez Canal, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai, Bermuda), as opposed to attempted domination of widespread areas, or continued hold on places that should have been set free long ago (Cyprus, Malta).
During the General Strike of 1926, he suggested that machine guns be used to kill strikers.
So he was a bloodthirsty totalitarian? I wouldn't call that suggestion conservative at all. Murderous, yes. Stalinistic? Yes.
>> Being a member of a mostly conservative party doesn't make you conservative. <<
No, but it is prima facie that when a hero like Churchill likes to declare himself a conservative, he may be considered a conservative by conservatives.
>> And in fact, Churchill left the Tories to sit with the Liberals in Parliament for many years (1905-1925). <<
He lost a primary to someone less conservative than he was, so he ran under a party that would take him. Sounds odd if you're understanding of "liberal" is "Democratic," but not if "liberal" was an alternative to "socialist."
Churchill's imperialism doesn't seem conservative to an American because the system Americans would conserve isn't an empire; Britain's is.
>> Was he really? He was an ally of Stalin in World War II, a war in which Stalin was clearly a co-agressor <<
No, he wasn't. Roosevelt was. Churchill would have gladly taken Mussolini over Stalin, any day. But Churchill wanted to survive, and broadening the war and alligning with Stalins were among Roosevelt's prerequisites for assisting Churchill.
>> After the war, he helped Stalin get even more territory than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave him (East Prussia, more of Poland, more of Finland, Transcarpathia). It was Churchill who suggested that the Poles be expelled from L'viv and Galacia, and the Germans from Silesia, Prussia, and the Sudeten, giving Stalin moral cover for this barbaric act. This "only" caused the deaths of about 3 million innocent civilians. <<
I can't knowledgeably refute this, but given your previously bizarre characterizations, I do question it.
>> So the support of freedom and self-government for Colonized people is liberal, but continued overseas domination of foreigners is conservative? <<
When "freedom and self-government" means Soviet dominance (which it did for most "liberated" colonies), yes it is liberal. And when one comes from an empire, yes, imperialism is conservative.
>> What is conservative about Empire? <<
The belief that the British system is valuable and should be preserved wherever it has taken hold, whether that be at home or abroad.
>> Churchill was so enamored of continued domination of enormous masses of Africans <<
Yeah, how's that liberation working out? Face it, "liberation" was Marxist code-speak for "abandonment."
>> ... and Indians ... <<
After decades of isolationism and socialism, India is returning to Anglosphere fold with fantastic results.
>> ... hat he couldn't see clearly that Britain was far better off consolidating a hold on a few key territories with many British subjects or easily defensible key interests <<
Written like only a Marxist women's studies major could write. Churchill didn't see Imperialism as mere exploitation, but a mutually beneficial relationship which aided the child (the colony) far more than the parent (the adult). Agree with that paternalism or not, you have to evaluate his outcomes by HIS values, not yours... and how do you come up with Biafra, Rhodesia and South Africa as valuable, and not Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Bangalore?
>> So he was a bloodthirsty totalitarian? <<
No, he was tough on crime (and the mob bosses running the strike were criminals, even if the laborer's objectives were just), and he didn't support unionism.
An art installation.
Says it all, doesn't it?
The Liberals also advocated socialistic programs, just not as socialistic as Labour.
Churchill's imperialism doesn't seem conservative to an American because the system Americans would conserve isn't an empire; Britain's is.
You are confusing traditionalism with conservatism. It was traditional for England to dominate various other lands. That does not make such policies conservative.
No, he wasn't. Roosevelt was. Churchill would have gladly taken Mussolini over Stalin, any day. But Churchill wanted to survive
Yes, Churchill was an ally of Stalin. He sat at the same negotiating table, fought on the same side, and shoke hands with the barbarian to sign away the lives and freedom of tens of millions.
Churchill had the option of not being a warmonger. However, that was contrary to his nature, and it is to the warmongers among the British all through the 1930's, of whom he was the leader to whom blame should fall for starting WWII as a general war, seeing as it would otherwise have been a localized German-Polish conflict followed by the epic Nazi-Soviet death struggle. It was the inability of the British warmongers to stay hands-off these conflicts, and then their taking sides with the Soviets against the Nazis (i.e., German invasion of Poland - bad and to be punished, Russian invasion of Poland, Finland, Romania, and Baltics - good and to be rewarded) that both spread the war and make them responsible for a share in the deaths it caused. Lest we forget, it was Britian that declared war on the Nazis (but not the Soviets), not the Nazis who declared war on Britain.
When "freedom and self-government" means Soviet dominance (which it did for most "liberated" colonies), yes it is liberal.
Most former colonies that came under Soviet influence were ex-French (Algeria, Syria, Vietnam) and Portuguese (Moazambique, Angola). Places like Kenya, Nigeria, India, Zambia, Botswana, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Burman, Malaysia, and the like were hardly Soviet dominated.
Yeah, how's that liberation working out? Face it, "liberation" was Marxist code-speak for "abandonment."
Which former British colonies do you adjudge as being failures in the realm of ruling themselves, in the way that we can say the Congo, for example, clearly cannot govern itself in peace?
After decades of isolationism and socialism, India is returning to Anglosphere fold with fantastic results.
Its amusing that you ignore the progress India made on its own from 1948 to 1998. Clearly some foundation must have been laid in those 50 years of "isolation" to allow the current progress in the last 5-10.
Written like only a Marxist women's studies major could write. Churchill didn't see Imperialism as mere exploitation, but a mutually beneficial relationship which aided the child (the colony) far more than the parent (the adult).
???? Marxist women's studies????
The primary purpose of imperialism is to exploit natural resources in other lands, especially those lacking in the mother country, and to control their distribution. Paternalistic rule over foreigners (who are thus held to be incapable of ruling themselves) is just another form of slavery, and what our forefathers rebelled against when George III and Parliament tried to impose it on us. How are we any different from the Africans, Indians, and Asians subjected to the British Crown in this regard? Because they are little brown people? Because there isn't any other significant difference.
Biafra, Rhodesia and South Africa as valuable, and not Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Bangalore?
Oil, oil and minerals and many hundreds of thousands of British settlers, and an enormous amount minerals (especially rare minerals) and many millions of British and Dutch settlers respectively.
On the other hand, Iraq was not a colony (it was a League of Nation Trust Territory), Saudi Arabia was never part of the Empire, Israel was of no value to Britian and Christendom if not to be kept as a Christian land, and Bangalore was and is nothing more than cheap labor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.