As expected, numerous responses have followed the 2006 publication of the Gospel of Judas and the puffery that was fed to and regurgitated by the popular media concerning this document's importance for understanding Christian origins and theology. Wright's thin and sharp monograph takes its place among those respondents who seek to calm anxious believers and rebut claims made by Judas' most fervid evangelists.

Wright offers little along the lines of substantive analysis of the specific contents of the Gospel of Judas. He aims, rather, to explain to a popular audience that, although Judas adds much to our knowledge of second-century disputes concerning the Christian faith, it offers no help towards filling in our portraits of the historical Jesus and Judas – a position that will meet little opposition from New Testament scholars. The former Bishop of Durham devotes more energy towards twenty-first-century disputes. Concerned about the sensationalism in the present context surrounding the Gospel of Judas and other ‘lost gospels’, he describes and criticises (1) the theological claims of second-century Christian ‘Gnosticism’ (Wright acknowledges that this is a problematic term but nevertheless finds it sufficient) and (2) currents in contemporary scholarship which seek to rehabilitate gnostic ideas by constructing a ‘New Myth of Christian Origins’ (an expression he has also discussed in other writings) and asserting that certain gnostic tenets might be instructive for Christian faith and practice today.

Wright begins by insisting, accurately, that the Gospel of Judas be understood within the scope of other ancient writings which espouse gnostic ideas and so a sketch of ‘classic Gnosticism’ precedes his discussion of Judas itself. He concisely and effectively demonstrates how this document aligns with basic contours of gnostic cosmology and soteriology. The second half of the book addresses Wright's more pressing concerns. He argues that the ‘escapist’ theology and ‘private spirituality’ of Judas and related texts are utterly incompatible with the canonical gospels’ outlook on the kingdom of God and Lordship of Christ. Wright decries the ‘bankruptcy’ of the gnostic worldview and castigates contemporary scholars who insist that gnostic Christianity, had it been permitted to flourish, might have generated a Christian tradition with a less authoritarian ethos or a more amicable disposition toward Judaism. He charges these scholars – Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer and Elaine Pagels are frequent targets – with perpetuating theologically dubious claims that the Gospel of Judas contains ‘vital new insights’ (p. 120) not merely for our grasp of second-century history but for how we might live the Christian faith today.

Wright's polemical edge cuts without being nasty. His writing addresses its intended audience of non-specialists clearly and intelligently, making it worthy of recommendation to students, church groups and neighbours. This kind of book is understandably bound to have places where complex issues are simplified to serve its primary aims and scope. For example, a brief discussion comparing a gnostic view of Jesus to the coherent or composite portrait conveyed in the canonical gospels provokes numerous questions about the nature of the canonical witness and its theological implications. Readers who hold perspectives which differ from Wright's may find some of his sweeping statements about various issues distracting unless they are willing to devote themselves to his heftier writings.

Wright charges that the ‘New Myth’ has found hospitable roots especially in North American soil, but his cultural critiques strike this American reviewer as too roughly sketched. Some of the American religious trends that he cites may not be as incompatible with his orthodoxy as he may imply, although one must confess that a kernel of truth resides in his observations about American religious narcissism – a condition that has made the marketplace of religious ideas even more open to certain kinds of exploitation. Despite the legitimacy of raising quibbles concerning Wright's reading of the American cultural scene, the basic argument and criticisms he advances in this book are accurate and timely indeed.