Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2019 Book of the month, "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler
User avatar
VernaVi
Posts: 203
Joined: 30 Sep 2018, 00:36
Currently Reading: The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance
Bookshelf Size: 40
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-vernavi.html
Latest Review: MY FRIEND Marilyn by Christopher Lentz

Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?

Post by VernaVi » 17 May 2019, 17:29

You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.

User avatar
Chrystal Oaks
Posts: 290
Joined: 09 Jan 2019, 15:27
2019 Reading Goal: 24
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 70
Favorite Book: The Sister Circle
Currently Reading: Cynthia and Dan
Bookshelf Size: 177
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-chrystal-oaks.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by Chrystal Oaks » 17 May 2019, 22:06

I have to say the entire book was a challenge. I thought Wahler was extremely confusing in presenting his proof. I need to continue searching and questioning all the ideas he presented. I'm not even clear if Wahler believes Jesus to be a real person or a myth; he was very vague.
We do not simply live in this universe. The universe lives within us.

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
diana lowery
Posts: 215
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 07:39
2019 Reading Goal: 40
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 40
Currently Reading: The Reckoning
Bookshelf Size: 147
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-diana-lowery.html
Latest Review: Tulip by Raymond Reed Hardy
Reading Device: B00IKPYKWG

Post by diana lowery » 19 May 2019, 08:19

It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.

Bluebird03
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 Dec 2018, 20:13
2019 Reading Goal: 65
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 150
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 106
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-bluebird03.html
Latest Review: The time we have by aastha madhur

Post by Bluebird03 » 20 May 2019, 08:41

diana lowery wrote:
19 May 2019, 08:19
It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.
Yes, Diana, I agree that Wahler's views are at least thought provoking enough to inspire many readers to look further into "The Bible" and compare what is written there to what Wahler asserts.

User avatar
nooregano
Posts: 385
Joined: 15 Dec 2018, 22:52
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 62
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-nooregano.html
Latest Review: Once An Insider, Now Without a Church Home by Amanda Farmer

Post by nooregano » 21 May 2019, 01:38

Snowflake wrote:
14 May 2019, 09:26
It sounds like this book has an interesting way of interpreting scripture. I can see how both passages mentioned in this thread can be taken out of context when only partially discussed. I think I would find this book very frustrating to read.
I agree with this. I think interpretations can only be fairly done after reading an entire book, and getting the "metaphorical" feel of it. It cannot start with specifics, because the specifics are part of the whole.
"I speak only one language, and it is not my own." - Jacques Derrida

User avatar
nooregano
Posts: 385
Joined: 15 Dec 2018, 22:52
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 62
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-nooregano.html
Latest Review: Once An Insider, Now Without a Church Home by Amanda Farmer

Post by nooregano » 21 May 2019, 01:40

diana lowery wrote:
19 May 2019, 08:19
It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.
This is a great point, and I agree! This book probably does a great job of getting someone to search for an alternate truths and critically examine previously held beliefs.
"I speak only one language, and it is not my own." - Jacques Derrida

Helena91
Posts: 79
Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 15:16
Currently Reading: The Fox
Bookshelf Size: 13
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-helena91.html
Latest Review: Randy Love...at your service by Shay Carter

Post by Helena91 » 23 May 2019, 02:52

diana lowery wrote:
19 May 2019, 08:19
It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.
It would seem so but I honestly do not believe that was the author's intention. All the same, it was a good thing he made us all go back to the bible

freakkshowx
Posts: 77
Joined: 07 Nov 2017, 16:12
2018 Reading Goal: 58
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 29
Currently Reading: Last Train to Istanbul
Bookshelf Size: 78
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-freakkshowx.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by freakkshowx » 23 May 2019, 09:31

Dragonsend wrote:
14 May 2019, 16:37
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings. It's so confusing I can barely write coherently about it!!! :D
I struggled with clarity as well. Half of the time, the way he wrote about certain characters was so confusing that I couldn't tell who he was referring to. Part of me thinks that this may have been on purpose to further twist the historical evidence to fit his view. I would like to bring up the fact that half of the scriptures used from The Gospel of Judas were broken and lost, allowing the author to just insert whatever he wanted within the gaps multiple times in the book. If a student tried to turn in a book report where they just filled in chunks like that, I wouldn't even grade it.

User avatar
Dragonsend
Posts: 325
Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
2019 Reading Goal: 12
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 408
Currently Reading: Hippocrates and The Hobgoblin
Bookshelf Size: 78
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
Latest Review: Randy Love...at your service by Shay Carter

Post by Dragonsend » 23 May 2019, 16:03

[quote=freakkshowx post_id=1181213 time=1558621870 user_id=363113]
[quote=Dragonsend post_id=1174691 time=1557869861 user_id=1230099]
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings. It's so confusing I can barely write coherently about it!!! :D
[/quote]

I struggled with clarity as well. Half of the time, the way he wrote about certain characters was so confusing that I couldn't tell who he was referring to. Part of me thinks that this may have been on purpose to further twist the historical evidence to fit his view. I would like to bring up the fact that half of the scriptures used from The Gospel of Judas were broken and lost, allowing the author to just insert whatever he wanted within the gaps multiple times in the book. If a student tried to turn in a book report where they just filled in chunks like that, I wouldn't even grade it.
[/quote]

I agree , I truly believe that the author stretched to fit his theory to evidence. Unfortunately , this makes the book an unenjoyable mess. Trying to fill in the gaps of something that is missing? I think that the translation should stand alone. As I thought that the translation by itself pointed more to proof of his betrayal than any thing else, missing parts and all.
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 :angelic-grayflying:

Washboard
Posts: 42
Joined: 03 May 2019, 19:17
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 14
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-washboard.html
Latest Review: We are Voulhire: The Fires of Virko by Matthew Tysz

Post by Washboard » 24 May 2019, 09:32

maritzaalston wrote:
11 May 2019, 10:03
In reading this book there were specific verses that the author identified that were inverted. Opposite of what I have learned, contradicting and attempting to put doubt in what they have taught me. Keeping all this in mind I will further analyze the verses the author provided and entertain and challenge his theory. Therefore, I am asking what verse in this book stands out the most for you and what about it do you know makes the most impact and influence you to stand by your belief. The following is an example but not the final determiner for me.

Using New King James Version, Mathew 26:39, The Prayer in the Garden,
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed saying, “Oh My Father, if it is possible,
let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

Using the Kindle Version of Misreading Judas, Mathew 26:39, Page 35
“Let this cup pass from me.”
Ah, selective editing. That is the only way to find out what the real truth is! Cut and paste words to get what you want out of it.

I did not have enough biblical knowledge when I started reading this book to catch things like this. Thank you for pointing it out. I suspected it was happening, but wasn't sure.
“Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.” ― George Orwell, 1984.

Washboard
Posts: 42
Joined: 03 May 2019, 19:17
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 14
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-washboard.html
Latest Review: We are Voulhire: The Fires of Virko by Matthew Tysz

Post by Washboard » 24 May 2019, 23:30

maritzaalston wrote:
11 May 2019, 10:03
In reading this book there were specific verses that the author identified that were inverted. Opposite of what I have learned, contradicting and attempting to put doubt in what they have taught me. Keeping all this in mind I will further analyze the verses the author provided and entertain and challenge his theory. Therefore, I am asking what verse in this book stands out the most for you and what about it do you know makes the most impact and influence you to stand by your belief. The following is an example but not the final determiner for me.

Using New King James Version, Mathew 26:39, The Prayer in the Garden,
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed saying, “Oh My Father, if it is possible,
let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

Using the Kindle Version of Misreading Judas, Mathew 26:39, Page 35
“Let this cup pass from me.”
I am all for dissecting a section of text to look at the pieces for deeper meaning, but not at the expense of the whole. Observing only small sections while removing their context can lead to incorrect analysis like this. Thank you for pointing this out. I would not have noticed it on my own, due to my lack of Biblical knowledge.
“Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.” ― George Orwell, 1984.

User avatar
esp1975
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 May 2019, 17:00
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 23
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-esp1975.html
Latest Review: Julu by Jan Anderegg

Post by esp1975 » 25 May 2019, 16:54

One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.

I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.

But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".
Latest Review: Julu by Jan Anderegg

colorsparkle
Posts: 51
Joined: 02 May 2019, 16:50
Currently Reading: Becoming
Bookshelf Size: 19
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-colorsparkle.html
Latest Review: The Surgeon's Wife by William H. Coles

Post by colorsparkle » 26 May 2019, 09:05

VernaVi wrote:
17 May 2019, 17:29
You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.

I definitely agree. If you put these back into context, it’s obvious that the author is just twisting the meaning to prove his point.

User avatar
eastandalchemy
Posts: 64
Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 05:42
2019 Reading Goal: 25
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 20
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 15
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-eastandalchemy.html
Latest Review: The Sparrow by Denna M. Davis
Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU

Post by eastandalchemy » 28 May 2019, 08:22

It's hard to defend any verse to anyone except for yourself. We base our interpretations and judgments based on our life experiences and what and who we choose to believe.

Sahansdal
Posts: 232
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 03 Jun 2019, 09:46

esp1975 wrote:
25 May 2019, 16:54
One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.

I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.

But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".
Any translation is a choice of word meaning. It isn't important for what I was doing here, for the most part. (Except when verses like John 9:4 are PROVABLY altered to suit the Church line IN ALL extant versions of the New Testament from the oldest, the Codex Sinaiticus, with "SENT US" to show that Jesus was not excluding himself from limitation to working only while living.) What I was doing was showing that the entire Betrayal narrative was derived and inverted as a way to hide something important: that James was the successor savior.

Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler”