Judas: The Definitive Collection of Gospels and Legends About the Infamous Apostle of Jesus

Do we make the extreme left in Israel the JUDAS? Young man in Israel, quite his studies & works as a companion to an old disabled man. He is attracted to the woman in the house, the old man's daughter in law. She is the daughter of "a traitor", a zionist who did not believe in a "state" of Israel separate from the Arabs

In the Jerusalem winter of 1959-60, at the height of the duffel-coat era, the life of the hairy postgraduate Shmuel Ash seems to be falling apart. His girlfriend has decided to marry a hydrologist, his parents can't afford to support him any more, his research has run into the sand, and to cap it all, the socialist discussion group has broken up after an ideological dispute ("Among the four who split off were the two girls in the group, without whom there was no longer any point.").

The scene seems to be set for an old man to have a good time whimsically making fun of his younger self, but of course there is a lot more to it than that. Through Shmuel's research into "Jewish representations of Jesus" and his discussions with the old history teacher Gershom Wald, Oz draws us into thinking about the figure of Judas and the idea of the "betrayer", and sets up parallels with the father of Shmuel's landlady, a member of the Jewish Agency council who was ostracised for opposing Ben-Gurion's partition policy in 1947 and 1948, believing that the only secure future for the Jewish people was in seeking peaceful cohabitation with the Arabs. Where is the line between an act of betrayal and an act of conscience? Does it make a difference whether history proves you right or wrong?

A lovely, very literary novel, with a quotable phrase on every page, a wealth of learning and cross-references deployed not to impress but to make you question what you thought you knew, and a lot of very enjoyable historical colour about Israel as it was sixty years ago.

Judas is a quiet yet intelligently multi-layered book. In some ways nothing much happens, yet at the same time everything happens.

After having his heart broken, a young Israeli student drops out of university and takes a live-in job as part-time companion and interlocutor to an old man who lives with his aloof daughter-in-law. At a fork in the road, his plans are aimless beyond finding respite from the world in the cocoon of this oddly reclusive house.

As a coming of age story evolves between the student and the older woman in the recent shadow of the new State of Israel, the novel considers the morality of the displacement of Israeli Arabs by the new Jewish settlers. The student revisits his abandoned thesis on Jewish views on Jesus, and as he debates with the old man whether Judas Iscariot deserves his label as the ultimate betrayer for inciting anti-Semitism, parallels are drawn with the daughter-in-law's father, who was considered a traitor by Jews for opposing the creation of the new State of Israel over peaceful cohabitation of Jews and Arabs. Were both men abject traitors to Judaism, or were they in reality true antiheroes?

I enjoyed this gentle yet thought-provoking novel much more than I expected to. It quietly raises hugely profound questions whilst sweeping you up in its beautiful prose. Oz's tender perception and human insight reminded me of Marilynne Robinson's writing in many ways. I'm not sure how his other translated books stand up to this one, and how much of his own apparent political leanings towards the Palestinian cause feature in his other works, but I'll certainly be looking out for more by him.

4.5 stars - gentle yet powerful, I'll be thinking about this book for quite some time.

The Short of It:

Really made me think about religion in general. Was Judas a hero? In this book, Oz poses the question.

The Rest of It:

This was a book club pick. Going into it, I had few expectations because I really didn’t know much about it. I have to say, this was probably a good thing.

"Jerusalem, 1959. Shmuel Ash, a biblical scholar, is adrift in his young life when he finds work as a caregiver for a brilliant but cantankerous old man named Gershom Wald. There is, however, a third, mysterious presence in his new home. Atalia Abravanel, the daughter of a deceased Zionist leader, a beautiful woman in her forties, entrances young Shmuel even as she keeps him at a distance. Piece by piece, the old Jerusalem stone house, haunted by tragic history and now home to the three misfits and their intricate relationship, reveals its secrets." ~ Indiebound

I found this book to be very good for discussion but not as enjoyable to read as I had hoped. The romantic element between two of the characters seemed a tad forced and not terribly realistic. I liked parts of the story. A young student, listening to stories and learning from an elder was appealing to me but Atalia was cold as ice. I never warmed to her.

The political elements were not excessive but provided enough background to give me a feel for the conflict of that region. As a discussion book, it was excellent. We had plenty to talk about. The possibility of Judas being a hero was something we had to wrap our brains around. Throughout history he has been recognized as a traitor. That brought up the question, what is a traitor and is being one always bad?

Interesting, huh? Well, that’s all I have. I will say that reading other books while reading this one was not possible so I’m glad this one is behind me but if your club needs a good discussion book, give this one a try.

For more reviews, visit my blog: Book Chatter.

A thought-provoking book that against a very simple plot, examines Judas and his role in the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as the setting up of the state of Israel after WWII. For the former, Oz uses a variety of historical and religious writing to paint a picture of Judas through his characters as one of Jesus’ truest believers, a man who orchestrated the crucifixion with the full belief that Christ would miraculously come down off the cross. For the latter, he employs a fictional character, Shealtiel Abravanel, a Zionist who is not “intoxicated with nationalism”, who argues against the creation of a Jewish state after WWII, saying that it will inevitably lead to bloodshed and ultimately, the Jewish people being wiped out by their more populous Arab neighbors.

What these characters have in common is that they are unjustly branded as traitors for simply taking the minority position over something they care passionately about – in the case of Judas, the beautiful teaching of Jesus, and in the case of Abravanel, the fate of the Jewish people. They are also both idealists who die isolated for their beliefs. As Oz himself has advocated a two-state solution with the Palestinians and been critical of the Israeli government, thereby hearing the invective “traitor” hurled his own way as well, he no doubt identifies with these characters.

I loved how balanced the book was, which is evident when its characters intelligently debate some of these points. Oz casts a critical eye over Christ himself, with one character expressing the view that he was a Jew for his entire life and didn’t expect a separate religion to form after his death (that was Saul/Paul’s doing). He also points out historical Jewish writings questioning Christianity, those that were written under great fear of violent Christian retaliation, but at the same time, points out that some of these voices used language “identical to the foul language of anti-Semites when they attack the Jews and Judaism.” Several time his characters mention the beauty of the teaching of Jesus, and how it came in stark contrast to the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Just as provocatively, he analyzes and criticizes the positions of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father, which raised my eyebrows.

Whether you believe one character or another, what’s brilliant here is that the book causes one to think, and I often saw no clear ‘right answer’, just different views on impossible problems that have no apparent solutions. The need to be rational, to understand the minority view and not condemn it, to avoid nationalism and violence, and to seek mediation instead of vilification – all of this comes through, which is the beauty of the book.

As for the story itself, the young college student going to living with an old man and his widowed daughter-in-law, well, it’s definitely not earthshaking, but I took it for the framework it was. I suppose Oz could have trimmed the book down a bit, as he gets a little repetitious at both the macro as well as micro level (we’re told the main character applies talc to his face and beard an inordinate number of times). Don’t pick the book up if you’re expecting action or some deep coming of age tale, but if you like quiet stories that examine these topics which can be so incendiary, this one might be for you.

Quotes:
On Israel, and power:
“Up to a certain point it’s possible to understand a people that for thousands of years has known well the power of books, the power of prayers, the power of the commandments, the power of scholarship, the power of religious devotion, the power of trade, and the power of being an intermediary, but that only knew the power of power itself in the form of blows on its back. And now it finds itself holding a heavy cudgel. Tanks, cannons, jet planes. It’s only natural that such a people gets drunk on power and tends to believe that it can do whatever it likes by the power of power.”

And this counterargument, on the limits of power:
“The fact is that all the power in the world cannot transform someone who hates you into someone who likes you. It can turn a foe into a slave, but not into a friend. All the power in the world cannot transform a fanatic into an enlightened man. All the power in the world cannot transform someone thirsting for vengeance into a lover. And yet these are precisely the real existential challenges facing the State of Israel: how to turn a hater into a lover, a fanatic into a moderate, an avenger into a friend. Am I saying that we do not need military might? Heaven forbid! …. Power has the power to prevent our annihilation for the time being. On condition that we always remember, at every moment, that in a situation like ours power can only prevent. It can’t settle anything and it can’t solve anything. It can only stave off disaster for a while.”

On a religious minority, and the nature of man:
“Judaism and Christianity, and Islam too, all drip honeyed words of love and mercy so long as they do not have access to handcuffs, grills, dominion, torture chambers, and gallows. All these faiths, including those that have appeared in recent generations and continue to mesmerize adherents to this day, all arose to save us and all just as soon start to shed our blood. …. If only all religions and revolutions vanished from the face of the earth someday, I tell you – all of them, without exception – there would be far fewer wars in the world. Man, Immanuel Kant once wrote, is by nature a crooked piece of timber. And we must not try to straighten him, lest we sink up to our necks in blood.”

And this counterargument:
“Should we really put an end to a grand idea and abandon all hope of reforming the world just because the Party there, in the Soviet Union, became corrupted and lost its way? Should we condemn a wonderful figure like Jesus just because the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be acting in his name?”

Dit is een van de laatste grote werken van Amos Oz (1939-2018). Centraal staat de coming-of-age van Shmuel Asch, misschien wat eigenaardig om het zo te noemen want de Israëlische jongeman is al 25. Maar hij vertoont alle kenmerken van een nog ongevormde persoonlijkheid. Zijn 3 maanden lange verblijf bij een oude rabbi en diens schoondochter zal zijn leven op een nieuw spoor zetten. Dit aspect van de roman vind ik het meest geslaagde: Oz neemt ruim de tijd om alle onzekerheden, onvervulde verlangens en nog niet rijpe ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden te schetsen en laat die ook doorheen de roman mooi evolueren.
Zoals regelmatig bij Oz is ook de problematiek van de staat Israël en de verhouding tot de Arabieren een centraal thema. Het verhaal speelt zich af eind 1959, begin 1960 en de gesprekken van Shmuel met rabbi Wald en met diens schoondochter Atalia focussen vooral op wat er in 1948 gebeurde, bij de oprichting van de staat Israël. Vooral de rol van Atalia’s vader, een man die aanstuurde op een goede relatie met de Arabieren, en van David Ben Gurion, de man die de gewelddadige oprichting van de joodse natie-staat forceerde, komt aan bod. Oz zelf neemt geen standpunt in, maar suggereert op zijn minst dat de optie voor een meer geleidelijke en vreedzamere ontwikkeling te weinig kansen heeft gekregen. Het is wellicht wat vergezocht, maar misschien reikte Oz met het ontwikkelingsverhaal van Schmuel als persoon ook een suggestieve link met de ontwikkeling van de jonge staat Israël?
Verwant met het voorgaande is ook het thema van ‘verraad’, en daarmee zitten we op het spoor van de titel van deze roman ‘Judas’. Schmuel Asch is geïntrigeerd door de negatieve joodse visies op het christendom, laat verschillende joodse schrijvers daarover aan het woord en formuleert uiteindelijk ook een eigen these waarin Judas als echte oprichter van het christendom wordt voorgesteld. Oz heeft dat vernuftig gedaan, maar overtuigt helemaal niet. Met dit thema legt hij wel een link met het “Israël-issue”, want in de discussies over de oprichting van de natie-staat werd de vader van Atalia gebrandmerkt als Arabierenvriend en dus als verrader; omgekeerd was in de ogen van die vader juist Ben-Goerion de verrader van de Joodse zaak. Oz geeft ook hier geen uitsluitsel over zijn eigen opinie, integendeel, hij brengt mooi aan hoe verduiveld onmogelijk het is om een evenwichtig oordeel te vellen. En dat is knap, zeker omdat we weten dat Oz als persoon duidelijk voor een koers van tolerantie en verzoening was.
Het zwakste element in deze roman is het liefdesverhaal tussen Schmuel en Atalia. De figuur van Atalia, een 45-jarige weduwe, is wel knap getekend en heeft behoorlijk wat diepgang. Maar de ontwikkeling van de relatie tussen haar en de jongeman is wel heel erg voorspelbaar, zeker omdat Oz al heel snel inzoomt op de affectieve tekorten van Schmuel en wel heel doorzichtige literaire technieken gebruikt om deze “onromantische romance” te tekenen. Dit thema maakt uiteindelijk dat deze nochtans erg interessante roman, voor mij tot de iets minder geslaagde van Oz behoort

The most accessible of all the Amos Oz books I have read. I'll admit to having struggled with one or two of his books before I read, loved and appeared as an extra in the movie of A Tale of Love and Darkness. This was a pleasure. I was transported to Jerusalem in the Winter of 1959 and challenged by the arguments for and against Israel's statehood which are visited here with a lost dissenting voice compared to Judas, the betrayer, the traitor who may just have been the single true believer right up until the moment he lost his faith. Excellent stuff.

Judas, Amos Oz, author; Jonathan Davis, narrator
I would describe this book as literary. I do not think it will appeal to a broad audience, but those interested in the history of Israel and the relationship of Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot, will find it inspirational. Various theories about their relationship and the relationship between Arab and Jew, and about the creation of the Jewish nation, are philosophically and historically explored with positive and negative views as competing ideas are presented.
The time is near the end of 1959. A young, rather unkempt looking, sensitive, university student, named Shmuel Ash, a Socialist, grows completely disillusioned with his life when his girlfriend, Yardena, suddenly leaves him to marry her ex-boyfriend. His personality, which is difficult to define either positively or negatively, no longer suits her. At the same time as this traumatic break-up occurs, Shmuel’s father suffers a business and financial reversal. He can no longer pay for Shmuel’s education. Rather than go to work to support himself and his studies, he leaves school, gives up his thesis on the Gospel of Judas, disappointing his family, and abandons his friends to wallow in his disappointments. He answers an advertisement to be a part time caretaker for an elderly, disabled man. The pay is a pittance but he needs a place to stay and wants to get away from everyone.
The elderly man, to whom he becomes a companion, Gershom Wald, lives with a woman, Atalia Abravanel. She is the widow of his son, Micha, who was killed in the War for Independence, fought in 1948, right after Israel was born. Wald had been a staunch Zionist. He believed in the Jewish nation. Atalia’s father, however, Shealtiel Abravanel, had not. He was considered a traitor and friend of the Arabs. Abravanel thought everyone should simply live together, all people, and didn’t believe in two separate states, either. He predicted the riots and upheaval to come if Israel became a reality, and he was ostracized by everyone. When Micah went off to fight, Atalia, begged him not to go. Shortly afterward, he was tortured, mutilated and murdered by the Arabs.
Atalia mesmerized Shmuel, even though she remained aloof, only describing his duties to him and keeping her distance. He worked for a few hours a day, from mid-afternoon until early evening. The rest of the time was his to pursue whatever he wished. He was often encouraged to use his time to study or write. Shmuel and the old man engaged in conversation about philosophy, concerning Israel, Jesus and Judas, and also, on occasion, about his life. Slowly the history of their different relationships was revealed as were the different theories about Judas and his role in the death of Christ and its effect on future civilizations. Did Judas betray Jesus, encouraging the crucifixion, or did he truly believe that G-d was Christ’s father, and would save him with unique powers that would lift him from the cross? If Jesus was Jewish, did he found Christianity or did Judas, with his historic reputation of treachery? In many ways, Abravanel and Judas are twinned, as both are characterized as traitors. Abravanel was considered a traitor to Jews and to Israel, and he predicted the chaos to come. Judas was considered the disciple who betrayed Jesus, and perhaps, caused the chaos to come.
While Wald provided Shmuel with somewhat of a father image, as Shmuel also was a stand-in for his son, it is more difficult to explain Atalia. She is somewhat of an enigma. Older than Shmuel, and depicted as the eternal grieving widow, she seems also to either mentor him or torment him as she entices him to her bed. It is difficult to determine her real purpose, and I found that the sex scenes seemed to add little to the narrative. One thing is certain, Shmuel is lonely and lost, and she seems to enrich his life, in some way.
In the book, the reader witnesses both Arab and Jew committing heinous crimes against each other, and although both viewpoints are presented, it seems obvious that the war, that 37 year old Micha gave his life to, was unavoidable. Gershom Wald is acutely aware of the fact that the Arabs wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, and his daughter-in-law’s father is acutely aware of the consequences he predicted becoming a reality. Are either of these viewpoints wrong? As Shmuel talks with the rabbi and his daughter-in-law, they develop and share ideas. They reveal their own characters to each other. Shmuel learns that Atalia is in complete control of Gershom’s care. They are both living in her home. She determined when each companion to Wald would leave, and none stayed very long. They all fell in love with her, and she soon tired of them. Shmuel would also suffer the same fate.
Did Abravanel truly betray the Jewish people with his opposition to the Jewish state. If there was no Jewish state, would Jews and Arabs live side by side? Would there be these constant wars in the Middle East? Was Judas really the man who betrayed Jesus or was Jesus really the G-d that Judas believed him to be? What would have happened to the world if there had been no Judas? Would there be anti-Semitism? Would there be a Christian Religion. Would a Jewish nation have been necessary? Would the world be at peace today, if Judas had been interpreted differently, if he really wasn’t the disciple who betrayed Jesus, but was a man who felt betrayed himself, by his own strong love and belief in Jesus as the son of G-d? If Abravanel’s warnings had been heeded would the world be more peaceful?
Shmuel’s fatal flaw seems to be that he always thinks too long about acting, but never actually does act. By the time he decides to do something, the moment has passed. Will he ever discover his own purpose in life as he is attempting to discover the purpose of Judas and Jesus? The book explores this and more, as Shmuel and Gershom write and speak about their thoughts on Jesus and Judaism and Jesus and Judas and discuss the Arab/Jewish problem in the land of Israel. Each of the characters was haunted by their memories and thoughts. Examining their innermost beliefs, the author is able to philosophize about the Arab/Jewish problems and the Jewish/Christian problems and the possibility of any of those conflicts being resolved.
The book examines relationships and the effect of different loyalties, political beliefs, socialization, and communication, on relationships as they all relate to each other, and how they relate to Israel and the Jews, to Judaism and Jesus. The book is particularly well read by the narrator with authentic accents and the expression of temperament that comes through with the portrayal of each character.
Two men are cast out, Abravanel and Judas, for similar reasons. We are left with the questions: What would the world be like if there had never been a Judas who was defined as a traitor, which ultimately birthed Christianity? What would the world be like if Abravanel had not been called a traitor and the Jewish nation had not been established?

A brilliant political polemic, cultural allegory, and probing of the uses and limits of power. The plot is a coming of age tale set in Jerusalem in 1959. The characters are clearly vehicles for the author to express his beliefs about a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel. The focus is on the role of Judas in the origination of Christianity. Do not read this book unless all I have said so far fascinates you. It is dense, philosophical, and somewhat plodding, yet is marvelously thought provoking. I liked it very much!

Here is a story from the winter days of the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960. It is a story of error and desire, of unrequited love, and of a religious question that remains unresolved. Some of the buildings still bore the marks of the war that had divided the city a decade earlier. In the background you could hear the distant strains of an accordion, or the plaintive sound of a harmonica from behind closed shutters.

Graduate student Shmuel Ash has decided to drop out of school after a bad breakup and a personal financial crisis. He spots an ad on a campus bulletin board that leads him to a home on the outskirts of Jerusalem. He accepts a position as a live-in caregiver/companion for invalid Gershom Wald. Wald shares the home with Atalia, a striking 40-something woman whose relationship to Wald is unclear to Shmuel. As the winter days pass, Shmuel becomes increasingly attracted to Atalia.

Shmuel and Wald often discuss Shmuel's research on Jewish views of Jesus. Shmuel's theories are beginning to veer in the direction of Judas. Shmuel perceives Judas, not as a traitor, but as the first Christian. When Shmuel and Wald aren't discussing religion, they're talking about politics, and specifically the formation of Israel and the 1948 war. Shmuel is especially interested in Shealtiel Abravanel, who alone among his colleagues on the Zionist Executive Committee and the Council of the Jewish Agency opposed the formation of Israel, believing that Arabs and Jews could peacefully coexist. For this he was branded a traitor and spent the rest of his life in self-imposed exile in the house where Wald, Atalia, and now Shmuel live. Shmuel's attempt to rehabilitate Judas's reputation naturally leads to an attempt to rehabilitate Abravanel's reputation.

This novel, which is receiving attention from various award committees, will be heavy going for readers who don't have an interest in or familiarity with the Gospels and with the politics and events that led to Israel's formation. If I had to write a paper about this book for a literature course, I'd probably avoid religion and politics and focus Oz's use of animal imagery. It's hard not to notice the stray dogs and cats and Shmuel's bear-like physical appearance.

The action of the novel takes place in Jerusalem during a winter at the end of the 1950’s. It is vintage Oz; very atmospheric, and heavy on authentic detail of the place and the period. The three principal protagonists are all intriguing and believable. Shmuel Ash is a student who – due to a mix of economic and personal reasons - drops out of his MA program at the Hebrew University, where he has been researching the Jewish perspective on Judas Iscariot. Indecisive about his future, he gets a job as a live-in companion to an elderly invalid, an acerbic intellectual called Gershom Wald. His employer is Wald’s daughter-in-law Atalia, an enigmatic woman in her forties with whom young Shmuel – recently abandoned by his girlfriend - immediately becomes obsessed. In describing the development of the relationships between Shmuel and the two other protagonists, the novel also introduces two deceased characters whose late presence is pervasive; Atalia’s husband, Wald’s only son, killed in Israel's war of independence, and Atalia’s father, Shaeltiel Abravanel, whose house they live in.

As well developed as the setting and the protagonists are, they only serve as a vehicle for presenting three narratives; two of them alternative interpretations of historical figures; the third of a fictional figure in a true historical setting

Judas Iscariot, a wealthy Jew from priestly circles, joined Jesus’ Apostles as a kind of “agent provocateur” but became a true believer. He became convinced that Jesus was divine, and that his survival of crucifixion would demonstrate that to the whole world, and bring about the kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Judas urged Jesus to come to Jerusalem, where he engineered the confrontation with the Roman authorities that led to Jesus’ crucifixion. When Jesus died in agony on the cross, Judas realized his error and hanged himself; he has subsequently been reviled as the Jew who betrayed his master. Judas’ mistaken faith in Jesus led to the subsequent birth of the Christian religion - without his intervention Jesus would have lived and died an itinerant preacher and miracle worker in the Galilee – and also to Judas himself permanently representing the Jew as the archetypal “god-killer”.

Shaeltiel Abravanel, the father of Atalia, was a member of the Zionist Executive, who became convinced that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would be a disaster that would inevitably lead to its destruction. He believed strongly that the only way that the Arabs would accept the Jews as partners, was if Palestine became a joint Arab-Jewish condominium under British or American tutelage. His increasingly vocal opposition to Ben Gurion’s drive for statehood led to him being expelled from the Zionist leadership; he died shortly after in obscurity, and was subsequently reviled as a traitor to the Zionist cause. Abravanel’s error was his belief that the Arabs could ever be persuaded to accept the Jews’ presence in Palestine

David Ben Gurion abandoned his socialist faith in favor of nationalism. He became convinced that the Jews could dispossess the Arab inhabitants of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state there. His actions fed the Arab hatred of Jews and led to an irresolvable conflict that the Jews of Israel must eventually lose. Ben Gurion’s error was his belief in the force of arms as a solution for Jewish homelessness; it has led to the international isolation of Israel and the perpetuation of Jew hatred throughout the world.

The question is, who does Oz believe is the true Judas; Abravanel the traitor who failed in his mission, or Ben Gurion, the Zionist hero who succeeded in his? Although both answers are possible, I think that Abravanel is a strawman, invented to carry an alternative to the Zionist narrative. The inevitable conclusion is that Ben Gurion is intended as the latter-day Judas; like Judas, his misplaced faith led to “disaster” – which is what the Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel - and to the perpetuation of the belief in the Jew as the villain of history. If I am right in my interpretation, I must admit to being surprised by this thoroughgoing anti-Zionist message. Although Oz’s strong “peacenik” views are well known, he is without doubt a lover of the land of Israel and its people.

So what is the purpose of this alternative narrative? Is it perhaps to shore up the morale of that ever decreasing minority of Israeli Jews who believe that, if Israel sacrifices sufficiently, it will be embraced by the world in general and its Arab neighbors in particular? That, if the West Bank and half of Jerusalem become completely judenrein (The Nazi term meaning free of Jews), and Palestinians are granted unlimited right of return to Israel, a new heavenly kingdom of peace will descend upon the Middle East? They would undoubtedly find the result of that sacrifice as disastrous and disillusioning as did Oz’s Judas; but thankfully, it is only fiction.

The latest novel by the acclaimed Israeli author, his first in over a decade, is set in Jerusalem during the winter of 1959-1960, and is centered on a passionate and sensitive young man, Shmuel Ash, who decides to abandon his graduate studies after he loses interest in his research of the Jewish view of Jesus throughout history, and after his girlfriend, who he loves deeply, leaves him for another man. His parents' recent financial misfortune causes them to withdraw their support of him, and he is forced to abandon his flat and find a way to fend for himself until he can figure out what he wants to do next. Opportunity comes from an ad on a university bulletin board, which offers room, board and a small salary for a young educated man to serve as a companion to an elderly, crippled former teacher in a house near the no man's land between the city's Israeli occupied border and the surrounding Jordanian territory. Shmuel goes to there almost immediately, and finds a charming but decrepit house that seems to be partially buried in the ground compared to its neighbors, in keeping with its secluded, molelike occupants. There he meets Gershon Wald, the witty invalid who relishes any opportunity to engage in verbal jousts on the phone with his remaining friends, and with Shmuel, an avowed socialist, who does not fully embrace the older man's pro-Zionist views. Of greater interest to Shmuel is Atalia, the house's other resident, a mysterious and alluring woman in her 40s who keeps a closetful of secrets, and teases the smitten young man with an alternating mixture of disdain and affection.

The book's other main theme is a re-evaluation by Shmuel of Judas as the first Christian and the most loyal of Jesus' disciplines, rather than a traitor, along with his interest in Atalia's late father, who was labeled as a traitor and forced to resign in shame from the Zionist Executive Committee in the months just prior to the formation of the state of Israel, due to his political views and statements which were in opposition to those held by his colleagues.

The numerous secrets held tightly by Gershon and Atalia are slowly revealed to Shmuel, and to the reader, in the manner of a flower whose petals are removed, one by one, until the sweet nectar in its center is uncovered and savored.

The novel started out slowly but became more compelling and impossible to put down about 1/3 of the way in, and I finished the last 2/3 in a single sitting. Judas is right up there with my favorite books by this brilliant author, who is still going strong at the age of 75 and is far more deserving of a Nobel Prize in Literature than the most recent recipient was.

Amos Oz is one of my favorite authors, and again I have not been disappointed – except for a little part of this Judas.
Just like in some of his earlier works, the atmosphere of wintery Jerusalem (this time in the mid-20th century) is described in a great manner, just like the house where our lost protagonist finds shelter, and its former and present inhabitants. Oz is a marvellous craftsman who knows all the tricks to seduce the reader into his fictional universes. The treason theme, as part of the beginnings of the state of Israel, is a convincing part of the story.
In my opinion the introduction of the Judas of the Gospels is the weak point of this book. It has been demonstrated a long time ago that the Romans carry the sole responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion, which means that the Judas episode in the New Testament is invented. Oz tries to give his own interpretation to this story – Judas as Jesus’ most convinced follower – but even with his great abilities he doesn’t succeed. Without the Judas chapters this book would be stronger than it is now.