In the News: Funny Stats on "The Tomb of Jesus"

I was checking out at the Discovery.com site regarding the upcoming TV special about the supposed tomb of Jesus. The site published some calculations that seem to indicate that -- on a very conservative scale -- the odss are at least 600-to-1 that rthe tomb belongs to Jesus's family. But based on my understanding of statistics, they mean something diffeerent, if they are correct at all.

The chart in this post vis from the site. It seems to indicate that --even using the most conservative possible criteria, that the change that this is Jesus's tomb is a 600-to-1 chance that the tomb belongs to Jesus's family. I thnk this is shaky match, and I'll try to explain why.

First of all, what is the calculation telling us? There are names in the list, presumably matching the names of the 5 inscriptions found in the tomb. Each name has odds associated with it. For instance, "Yose" is associated with "1/20," indicating that there is a 1/20 chance of someone havng the name Yose. The same goes for the other names. I will assume for now that this data is accurate for the period in question. But what do you get when you perform the math in the computations? This is cruial, becuase the question you think you are answering may not be the one the nbers are describing. If, as seems to be implied, we are calculating the odds that this is the tomb of the Jesus Family, we might get very excited when we show high odds against this combination of names occuring by chance. But is that what the numbers really show?

We know from the gospels (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3) that Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon and Judas. He also has unnamed sisters. Jesus's father was Joseph, and his mother was Mary.

What does the "Tomb of Jesus" give us? 10 ossuaries, 6 ofwhich have names:

• Jesus, son of Joseph
• Maria
• Matthew/Matia
• Yose (Joseph)
• Judah, son of Jesus
• Mariamne

What is one to make of this? Certainly, there are similar names in both lists. But there are some missing items as well. Where is James (Jacob)? Where is Simon? And where is Judah the brother of Jesus, as opposed to Judah his son? Are we to assume that they are among the 4 unmarked ossuaries? Who are Mariamne and Maria -- Jesus's mother? Wife? Unnamed sister? It's impossible to know. Given the use and reuse of names in the 1st cebtury, it's hard to make a case for the two lists namng identical individuals.

Not that Discovery and James Cameron don't try.

"Computation 1" attempts, I guess , to show the odds that this is Jesus's family. We are shown the odds that 5 random people buried in the same tomb could have the names in question. Why we aren't examining all six names is a mystery to me, but let us move on. Following the logic of the numbers, and assuming the frequencies given of the names of people living in Palestine at the time of Christ is accurate, you would expect that, at random, only one set of 5 ossuaries out of 97 million would contain "Jesus son of Joseph," "Mariamne," "Matia," "Maria" and "Yose." Remove the odd name Matia, and the odds drop to the still impressive 2.4 million to one.

But 2.4 million to one of what? Only that 5 people with the names in question would end up in the same tomb. This is far from proving that Jesus's family is the family (if family this is) in question. Next, are we to assume that all people who lived in Jesus's time would have been buried in an ossuary? Let's say that only 1 of 100 people had this luxury. That drops the odds to 24,000 to one. And that's just for starters. Assuming that 600,000 people would have been candidates for ending up in a Jerusalem ossuary, this yields 120,000 groups of five, yielding 200 chances (=1/600 *120000) that a random selection of these 5 names could be buried together. Even if Jesus was buried in one of these boxes, there would be a 1 out of 200 chance that this box would be his.

The logic behind these numbers is spurious and nonsensical. Suppose that our "Jesus son of Joseph" was buried in this box. What does that tell us about the occupants of the other boxes? Is "Yose" his father, his brother or his son? Is Mariamne his mother or Mary Magdalene?

Of course for believers, the crucial multiplier is that probability that Jesus was buried in a bone box at all, which is 0%. For Caytholics, that goes double for the Virgin Mary, since the dogma of the Assumption indicates that her body was glorified and is in heaven with her Son's. Multiply that by the unlikelihood that the Resurrection story would have survived a quick tour by hostile authorities of the Jesus Family Tomb, or that the disciples (most of whom stayed in Jerusalem) would not have been aware that Jesus was secretly buried, decomposed, and a year later was transferred secretly to an ossuary with his own name on it!!! Or that no cult of Jesus would have been apparent at the tomb of Jesus -- as it was not long hence at the graffiti-rich tomb of Peter in Rome. And that no oral tradition grew up around the tomb of Jesus as it did for various other holy sites when St. Helena visited Jerusalem in the early 4th century. Even the gnostics, as silly as they were, did not mention Jesus being buried.

The improbabilities mount implacably. The only thing that seems certain is the ever present demand for money, status and attention. Not to mention the seemingly insatiable desire on the part of some moderns to disprove the Resurrection story.

There seems to be as much of a need for many to believe that the Jesus story was not what it has been taught to be. The rise of neo-gnostics, atheists and moral relativizers must certainly be a hallmark of our time. The Churches have a huge responsibility to react with gentleness, humor and truth to these silly attempts at neutralizing the faith of so many vulnerable minds. I rather doubt they'll rise to the occassion. Will we?

In the news: Jesus Tomb found (Hee hee!)

Filmmaker James Cameron shows off his bone boxes.

The good news? That Anna Nicole Smith is slowly finding her way off he front page. The bad news? Jesus's "tomb" has found its way on.

According to a story in CNN, among many other places, an ossuary or Jewish bone box has been found -- with Jesus's name on it!!! That an upcoming documentary is attached to this supposed find is just a coincidence.

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and scheduled to air March 4 on the Discovery Channel, argues that 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in a Jerusalem suburb may have held the bones of Jesus and his family.

Yes, and the stuff I dig out of my ears may be liquid gold!

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film...[and] a name on one of the ossuaries -- "Mariamene" -- offers evidence that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, "Mariamene" is the name of Mary Magdalene.

But it doesn't take a biblical scholar to figure out the hole in Cameron's logic. Even if the name on the ossuary is really "Jesus," which scholars aren't sure is even the case, it wold hardly prove anything. "Jesus (Aramaic "Y'shua") is equivalent to "Joshua," a phenomenally common name in 1st century Palestine. It's like finding "George" on a tombstone and claiming that it must be George Washington.

But there's more. In a bit of nearly-comical understatement, the article goes on to say that, "The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven."

I supposed it might, mightn't it.

Anyway, anything for a buck. Sadly, our increasingly addle-brained and credulous population is prone to fall for this nonsense. The Jesus-Mary Magdalene connection is very old - it goes back at least as the 2nd century gnostics. But you have to wonder about whether people, having heard the connection repeated constantly fore the last 20 years -- think "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," "The Da Vinci Code" book and movie and Sylvia Browne's garrulous claptrap -- will start to think this makes any sense.

Anyway, I am anxious to see the film. But I can't decide whether to block out the commercials or to take careful note so can beat up on the corporations that are selling lies to the American public.

Book Review: What Paul Meant

What Paul Meant by Garry Wills

A short home run,

Garry Wills continues to amaze. With laser-like clarity, he burns away millennia of misunderstanding and ecclesial obfuscation to get to the heart of the message of Saul of Tarsus. Wills focuses all his attention on the letters that can be attributed to Paul with certainty. This decision allows the true Paul -- the brilliant, passionate, harried emissary of Christ -- to shine through. Wills's Paul is committed to his revelation of the Resurrected Jesus. In fact, Wills goes to lengths to show that Paul's experience of the risen body of the Lord informs much of his writing about what awaits the faithful after death. Wills shows Paul as completely comfortable in the presence and leadership of women and as utterly uncompromising, even with the leaders of the Jerusalem community. Wills effectively and utterly destroys the historical judgment that Paul was the "bad news man" who smothered Jesus's message of love under a blanket of dark theology.

If anyone comes out the badly in this book, it's Luke the Evangelist. Writing perhaps 30 years after Paul, Luke was more likely to smooth out early church conflicts and show Paul as less of a maverick and more of a "company man." Luke has Paul ever circling back to Jerusalem to get permission from the authorities for this or that adventure. The problem is that a) Paul spent little time with the immediate companions of Christ, b) the only authority he respected was the revelation of the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus and c) Paul's own letters contradict Luke. In Acts, the so-called Council of Jerusalem is the 1st century equivalent of a carefully organized corporate "off-site" -- with prepared speeches by the leaders and elaborate protocol. Paul describes the same "council" as a backroom meeting with James and Peter that was sealed with a handshake.

"What Paul Meant" shows Wills at his best -- stripping away layers of self-serving encrustations and legends to get back to the original material beneath. His attempt at removing the churchy language that encumbers Paul is quite worthy. In Wills's translation, Paul's references to "Christ Jesus" are rendered "Messiah Jesus." "Faith" becomes "trust" and "church" (ekklesia) becomes "gathering." In this way, Wills makes Paul sound more like a charismatic apostle on the run and less like a Victorian gentleman, fusty cleric or controlling bishop. That Wills can scrape off the old paint without destroying the vital and vibrant man beneath is amazing. That Wills does this while retaining Paul's identity as a recipient of an appearance of the Resurrected Christ is extraordinary.

Wills's Paul is a challenge to today's Church, which keeps women in subordinate roles and stifles the spirit in innumerable ways. That Paul has survived at all is a testament to his integrity and to the vitality of his message, which Wills's argues persuasively was Jesus's message, written at least 20 years before the gospels. Wills's section describing the outlook of Jesus, as refracted by the Church of the 40s and 50s, made it crystal clear that the gospels, written from 70-100 CE, used material that was already part of the church's early experience and teaching.

The only problem with the book is that it is too short. I could listen to Wills tell me all day of the wonders of the early Church and of his love for Messiah Jesus.

Book Announcement: "Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion"

There is a steady trickle of books from otherwise worldly people -- such as snarky writers who "should know better" -- into the fold of Christianity. I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but it is somewhat heartening to see hearts being moved, usually against their better judgment, by elements of piety. Call it faith or maturity or "just one of those things," the fact is that some young are moving beyond the cliches of religion haters to embrace the world of the spirit. Or at least to show up at Church once in awhile.

I ran across the latest entrant in Salon.com. Here's the Editor's note from the story:
At 46, Sara Miles, a left-wing, secular journalist and former cook, found herself an unlikely convert to Christianity. She joined St. Gregory's Episcopal Church in San Francisco, where she turned the bread she ate at Communion into groceries for a food bank that now feeds over 450 people a week. The following excerpt is from her memoir about what she calls her "unexpected and terribly inconvenient" spiritual awakening -- "Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion."

OK. So a woman in her mid-40s can't exactly be called "young." But she can certainly be called "unlikely" in her acceptance of religious life. Her entry seems to have been facilitated by an unorthodox priest who is not afraid of loving the Church in spite of its incredible flaws and appalling history. Or has she just found a little-used angle for getting material for a book? What points me in the opposite direction is her description of her conversion as "inconvenient." How very biblical -- God hooking us when we least expect it! Ask Ezekiel. Ask Paul.

I have not read the book, but have it on order at the library. If one of you gets to it first, please add your comments!

Here's the link to the story: http://salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/02/17/take_this_bread/

Where have we been? Part I

It has been a long time since I spect time wiuth this blog. Except for the occassional book review, thiungs have been pretty quiet at The Cranky Catholic. Much of the reason is logistical. As the father of two teenage boys, ther's always plenty to do. Fightss to referee, homwwork to help with, college applications to fill out, and whatnot. Then ther are the holidays, birthdays, and the typical stresses and strains of handling family issues. Also, jusst being tired.

There's also the matter of Church. Since the summer of 2006, we have been attending Mass with a rather renegade community of Catholics called the LaSalette Worship Community. The commnunity started about 30 years ago as an offshoot of a group that attended Mass at the LaSalette Shrin in North Attleboro, Mass. This group, which included divorced people, found inccludio at the Srhine that was not being extended in parishes. When the LaSalette missionaries decided to close the Shrine in 19-whatever, the community wanted to continue. This is a nice way of saying that it ccould not imagine returning to the ccold welcome that awaiting them in their parishes. Since then, the community has found refuge in a variety of places. most recently in the the 4H hall at the Topsfield Fair Grounds in Topsfield, MA.

Perhaps I should be ashamed of this, but I did not want to write about this group for a variety of reasons. One was that I was hedging my bets -- what if news got back to my home parish that I was attedning Mass in a non-parish setting? Would they still confirm my youngest son -- since LaSatte does not have permission to confirm? What kind of grief would I get from the peeple who continued at the parish? Was LaSalette just a lark -- a youthful experiment -- that would come to an end when one or another of its practices seemed too outlandish?

It took several months before I became convinced that this community is not heterodox in its faith, ewven though in a very few instances it is outside the strict boundaries of the rubrics. For instance, after the Preparation of Gifts, we may approach the altar. And we offer real non-alcoholic wine to those who prefewr it.

The community is warm and inclusive, and I will talke about this later. By and large, it is free of the kind of petty rubricism that affliccts so many parisshes and the minds of som many Catholics. We are served by some of the best homilists in the area -- people who head theology departments at major catholic universitities, for instance.

Being at LaSalette has renewed my faith in the Church -- at least that part of the Church that is inviting and loving. I have no illusions that our community represents the future of the Catholic Church. It houses far too many narrow-minded and retrogade elements to think that our little island of hope will survive. Yet I do hope. I hope that this group can revitalize the liturgical life of the entire CHurch. I hope that it points the way to a Church where men and women and children can encounter Christ on their own terms -- not the inflated an inaccessible language typically forced down our throats. I hope that our group is a test bed for the idea that parishes that allow enormous latitude to lay control are healthy and vibrant and that (conversely) parishes led by autocratic and laity-hating priests will wither and die.

I am glad to be back, and I hope to talk more about the experience of belonging to a body in which Christ is present in its members.

Blessings.

Book Review: The Mystical Life of Jesus

The Mystical Life of Jesus: An Uncommon Perspective on the Life of Christ
by Sylvia Browne

Gnon-sense from beginning to end

Sylvia Brown, accompanied by her spirit partner Francine, have decided to take on the greatest (and most lucrative) mystery of all -- the life of Jesus Christ. Browne promises that this book will combine the truth discovered by biblical scholars, along with corrections from "The Other Side," channeled by Francine. There ought to be no limit to the depths of knowledge that can be achieved by such a partnership -- one side of which seeks truth by conventional means, the other one knowing all the answers.

Some odd results emerge. Browne, supposedly passing along the insights of biblical scholars, puts forth some howlers. Biblical scholars are fairly unanimous in supporting the two-source theory of the gospels, in which Matthew and Luke (writing around 85 CE) base their gospels on Mark (written around 70 CE) + a hypothetical document "Q". To this mixture, each evangelist adds his own material. Because of the tight relationship between these three gospels, they are called "synoptic," which means "with the same eye," which is to say, from the same point of view. But Brown states categorically that the Synoptics were written by the same person! And there is no mention -- not even a dismissive one -- of "Q." It's almost as though she (and presumably Francine) had never heard of it.

Brown explores the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew, noting that each relates different details of the birth of Christ. This, of course, is a legitimate field of inquiry. Should believers attempt to harmonize the accounts -- adding Matthew's Star and Magi to Luke's manger and angels? Are they both, as many scholars believe, legendary accounts that seeks to communicate theological truths via unhistorical accounts? Browne splits the difference by basically dismissing Matthew and accepting Luke. However, she does accept the star stor -- Francine says it was a supernova. And though she accepts the visit of the Magi, she claims that they were local merchants -- not the priestly class of ancient Persia that the word "Magi" indicates. I'm sure this is news to the scholars.

Browne's version of the Passion is equally tipsy. She mentions that the gospels are confused because they refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" and as the "Son of Man." Crazy evangelists -- trying to fool us! But Browne seems not to grasp that "Son of Man" is generally understood as a Semitic self-reflective idiom for "this person", i.e., "myself" -- and simultaneously as a reference to the apocalyptic "Son of Man" figure from the book of Daniel.

In Browne's understanding, Pilate admired Jesus and wanted to save him, but wanted to preserve peace. Jesus, for his part, knowing that the Jews wanted to kill him, approached Pilate to work out a deal. So Pilate, Jesus, Judas and Joseph of Arimethea conspired (secretly, except for the ever-watchful Francine) to bring Jesus to trial. Pilate's role would be to try to sway the trial Jesus's way. But if that didn't work, he would have Jesus endure a "Crucifixion Lite" which would fool the Jews into thinking he was dead. Then, Jesus would be smuggled out of the country. Browne's idea of the trial is ludicrous. She imagines Pilate as a sympathetic judge in the American tradition who is powerless at the trial to do anything but pass sentence. But as procurator of Judea, Pilate had near-dictatorial powers that were backed up by the Roman legions. Besides, if Pilate wanted peace and planned to let Jesus live anyway, why go through the charade of the mock crucifixion? Why not just smuggle him out of the country in the first place?

Browne, desperate for material, pirates plotlines and ideas from all over -- including the "Passover Plot" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." She is incredibly lazy, even about historical facts that could be checked with 2 minutes on Google. She claims, for instance, that Mary Magdalene was secretly canonized by the Catholic Church (every gnostic's favorite bug-bear) at the Second Vatican Council in 1969. Too bad for her that the council had been over for four years by then.

Brown rejects the Resurrection, claiming that Jesus survived his Crucifixion. His dimwitted disciples, informed of the deception by the "risen" Christ, kept the cover story alive by spending the rest of their lives proclaiming the lie of the Resurrection. Jesus, meanwhile, lived to a ripe old age at his villa in France, raising kids, performing the odd miracle and starting a gnostic church. This is surely more absurd than the idea that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven and that his disciples devoted their lives to spreading the good news of his real return from the dead. Browne serves up every preposterous notion she can think of. The "Beloved Disciple" was a woman (in spite of Jesus's words, "Son, behold your Mother")? No problem! Mary Magdalene was the first pope? Why not? Jesus prayed to a female deity? Natch.

The work of scholars is daunting, slow and painstaking. Long hours are spent bent over manuscripts, searching for tiny clues in ancient texts. The meaning of a word may hinge on the shape of a serif, or on a new pottery shard unearthed during highway construction. But while the temptation to find a quicker way to the truth is understandable, shortcuts have not been found. The slow slog continues, grinding down generations of scholars in the relentless pursuit of truth. Sylvia Browne's book makes hash of centuries of scholarly toil. She pretends to give her readers a glimpse into the truth of Jesus's life. Instead she concocts a warped and bizarre version of reality that not only mocks the mission of Christ and the Church that bears his name, but also the Truth for which he stood. Her purpose is not to shine a light on history and to bring her readers to God, but to sow confusion and to line her own pockets. It's a shame that the time is ripe for such nonsense to proliferate. Pathetic." name=review> Sylvia Brown, accompanied by her spirit partner Francine, have decided to take on the greatest (and most lucrative) mystery of all -- the life of Jesus Christ. Browne promises that this book will combine the truth discovered by biblical scholars, along with corrections from "The Other Side," channeled by Francine. There ought to be no limit to the depths of knowledge that can be achieved by such a partnership -- one side of which seeks truth by conventional means, the other one knowing all the answers. Some odd results emerge. Browne, supposedly passing along the insights of biblical scholars, puts forth some howlers. Biblical scholars are fairly unanimous in supporting the two-source theory of the gospels, in which Matthew and Luke (writing around 85 CE) base their gospels on Mark (written around 70 CE) + a hypothetical document "Q". To this mixture, each evangelist adds his own material. Because of the tight relationship between these three gospels, they are called "synoptic," which means "with the same eye," which is to say, from the same point of view. But Brown states categorically that the Synoptics were written by the same person! And there is no mention -- not even a dismissive one -- of "Q." It's almost as though she (and presumably Francine) had never heard of it. Brown explores the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew, noting that each relates different details of the birth of Christ. This, of course, is a legitimate field of inquiry. Should believers attempt to harmonize the accounts -- adding Matthew's Star and Magi to Luke's manger and angels? Are they both, as many scholars believe, legendary accounts that seeks to communicate theological truths via unhistorical accounts? Browne splits the difference by basically dismissing Matthew and accepting Luke. However, she does accept the star stor -- Francine says it was a supernova. And though she accepts the visit of the Magi, she claims that they were local merchants -- not the priestly class of ancient Persia that the word "Magi" indicates. I'm sure this is news to the scholars. Browne's version of the Passion is equally tipsy. She mentions that the gospels are confused because they refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" and as the "Son of Man." Crazy evangelists -- trying to fool us! But Browne seems not to grasp that "Son of Man" is generally understood as a Semitic self-reflective idiom for "this person", i.e., "myself" -- and simultaneously as a reference to the apocalyptic "Son of Man" figure from the book of Daniel. In Browne's understanding, Pilate admired Jesus and wanted to save him, but wanted to preserve peace. Jesus, for his part, knowing that the Jews wanted to kill him, approached Pilate to work out a deal. So Pilate, Jesus, Judas and Joseph of Arimethea conspired (secretly, except for the ever-watchful Francine) to bring Jesus to trial. Pilate's role would be to try to sway the trial Jesus's way. But if that didn't work, he would have Jesus endure a "Crucifixion Lite" which would fool the Jews into thinking he was dead. Then, Jesus would be smuggled out of the country. Browne's idea of the trial is ludicrous. She imagines Pilate as a sympathetic judge in the American tradition who is powerless at the trial to do anything but pass sentence. But as procurator of Judea, Pilate had near-dictatorial powers that were backed up by the Roman legions. Besides, if Pilate wanted peace and planned to let Jesus live anyway, why go through the charade of the mock crucifixion? Why not just smuggle him out of the country in the first place? Browne, desperate for material, pirates plotlines and ideas from all over -- including the "Passover Plot" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." She is incredibly lazy, even about historical facts that could be checked with 2 minutes on Google. She claims, for instance, that Mary Magdalene was secretly canonized by the Catholic Church (every gnostic's favorite bug-bear) at the Second Vatican Council in 1969. Too bad for her that the council had been over for four years by then. Brown rejects the Resurrection, claiming that Jesus survived his Crucifixion. His dimwitted disciples, informed of the deception by the "risen" Christ, kept the cover story alive by spending the rest of their lives proclaiming the lie of the Resurrection. Jesus, meanwhile, lived to a ripe old age at his villa in France, raising kids, performing the odd miracle and starting a gnostic church. This is surely more absurd than the idea that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven and that his disciples devoted their lives to spreading the good news of his real return from the dead. Browne serves up every preposterous notion she can think of. The "Beloved Disciple" was a woman (in spite of Jesus's words, "Son, behold your Mother")? No problem! Mary Magdalene was the first pope? Why not? Jesus prayed to a female deity? Natch. The work of scholars is daunting, slow and painstaking. Long hours are spent bent over manuscripts, searching for tiny clues in ancient texts. The meaning of a word may hinge on the shape of a serif, or on a new pottery shard unearthed during highway construction. But while the temptation to find a quicker way to the truth is understandable, shortcuts have not been found. The slow slog continues, grinding down generations of scholars in the relentless pursuit of truth. Sylvia Browne's book makes hash of centuries of scholarly toil. She pretends to give her readers a glimpse into the truth of Jesus's life. Instead she concocts a warped and bizarre version of reality that not only mocks the mission of Christ and the Church that bears his name, but also the Truth for which he stood. Her purpose is not to shine a light on history and to bring her readers to God, but to sow confusion and to line her own pockets. It's a shame that the time is ripe for such nonsense to proliferate. Pathetic.

Book Review: The Secrets of Judas

The Secrets of Judas CD: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and His Lost Gospel
by James M. Robinson

Yes, Virginia, the Church will survive the Gospel of Judas

James Robinson is not the run of the mill sensationalist you would expect to write a book with "The Gospel of" or "The Secerts of" in the title. Bulletin! Yet another breathless volume that "threatens to rock Christinaity to its foundations." (Aren't we sick of these yet?) As a scholar and member of The Jesus Seminar -- which may strike some as a contradiction in terms -- he has been prominent in the study of the Nag Hammadi documents and the elusive gospel source, Q. In "The Secrets of Judas," he introduced us to the takes on the latest entry into the trove of ancient codices -- a presumably gnostic text that claims to have been written by the betayer of Jesus Christ.

Robinson takes us on an all-you-can-learn tour of the gospel charcater we Christians have come to hate. He raises provactive questions, Jesus Seminar style, about the propriety of seeing Judas as a bad character. If, as the gospels indicated, Jesus was destined to die for our sins, and if it was prohesied that be be handed over by one of his own, how would this happenn without a Judas? Robinson goes onto somewhwat shaky ground with his analysis of the context of the writing of the canonical gospels. He (not inapporopriately) sees a growing gulf between the first witnesses to Jesus (the mostly-Jewish Jerusalem Church) and the growing body of gentile Christians. Interestingly, he sees Luke and Matthew as writing contemporaenous gospels to each of these communities -- Matthew's from the Jewish Christian perspective and Luke's from the gentile perspective. This is new to me, though (except for the deliberate nature of the co-release that Robinson posits) not impossible. Robinson's point is to show that each gospel showed Judas in a slightly different light, from which he makes rather large conclusions.

Robinson then turns his attention to the text itself. He shoots down claims that the GoJ is part of the Nag Hammadi cache. He describes his efforts to secure the text from its Egyptian owner and details the comical James Bond stories that grew up around the discovery and sale of the documents. It's fun to see so many people -- smugglers, writers, acamedics, wealthy collectors and universities -- each with their own agenda, all trying to get their hands on the same document. Robinson then describes the process of conserving the text and its eventual exploitation by the National Geographic Society. He is expecially peeved by the fact that NatGeo set an Easter Week deadline for the release of a partial translation of the document (lacking the original Coptic. as scholars would desire) and a TV show about the codex. The maneuverings and compromises made by all involved are lovingly (if not altogether engagingly) tracked and catalogued, just as Robison the scholar would treat fragment of an ancient codex.

What you won't get from "The Secrets of Judas" is a look at the gospel itself -- a major disappointment. Robinson's book was published prior to the Easter 2006 NatGeo treatment and seems aimed mainly at demystifying the gospel, knocking the wind out the the sails of those trying to profit from it and get even with people whose values he despises. He is very clear that the text of the GoJ, though it may shed light on the makeup of the Christian communities flourishing in the 2nd century, will not shake up modern Christianity or bring down the Vatican. Yet as a behind-the-scenes look at the way various groups bring antiquities to light, his book is often fascinating. And as a way to observe the workings and the values of an eminent biblical scholar, it is wonderful.

I was quite impressed, by the way at the skill of audio book reader Conger Eric -- especially his ability to read names in French, Swiss, German and Dutch with appropriate accents."