Judas

Reviewer Stuart Wilder is quite right in stating that Amos Oz' writing is ponderous as molasses, but this has little to do with Amos Oz, rather with the translation by a British-Israeli scholar of Hebrew. Yes, Oz' effectiveness is informed by a stylistically aloof posture, but the writing itself is immediate and accessible. In America, however, we do not "plump up" pillows so much as fluff them, or fluff them up. And this: "'You have formulated two different requests at once, and you would receive two answers at once'". The perfect and the subjunctive just don't line up like that in American English, and "formulated" doesn't feel right. This is not just a good book, it is a "must-read" for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the Arab-Israel dilemma. It is a shame that Amos Oz, as well-known as he is, is simply not that popular in America. He should have been. Freer and more idiomatic translations of his books would have helped enormously.

Judas, by Amos Oz...a good book...the main thesis is set out about halfway through the book....premature perhaps, but sine I'd already read Borges take on Judas, from which this author has taken...and the Gospel of Judas I was already familiar with the main idea, set forth above...to wit: Judas was the only educated man in the bunch, he was a banker and didn't need the money, the Romans knew who Jesus was and didn't need to have Judas kiss him....Judas did what he did because he and Jesus had agreed that Judas was the only one strong enough to do the job and it had to be done to prove the divinity of Jesus, but Judas didn't realize that Jesus actually HAD to die on the cross and thought he screwed up. So he deleted his existence.
What interested me was a notion that occurred to me but not to them: what if Judas is another Job? I mean, Jesus KNEW who would betray him so God, his father, must not only have known but had selected Judas....he hung himself because after Jesus died and he asked God: why me? God replied: it had to be someone...don't take it personally instead of counseling "be patient". So, Judas is Job. If you don't remember the oldest book in the Bible: Satan goes to God and wagers he can make Job, and honorable, pious man, deny God if Satan can inflict miseries....God says, so long as you don't hurt him, go for it....so, Job loses his cattle, land, family and friends but doesn't turn against God....so, Satan goes back for a second time and says: let me hurt him....God says: Go for it....and boils break out over Job's body and he is in agony and to make it worse his neighbors, he has no friends left, drop by and tell him he must have really pissed off God...and he says: but, but, but, but....he finally goes and prays to God, why me? and God says: it had to be someone, don't take it personally. Judas couldn't handle that answer...hanging was his way of giving God the finger....I can take myself out of this wager...Jesus didn't get dry- gulched

The book has two other aspects to consider: one is the fact that at the beginning of Israel as we know it today not everyone was in favor of a Jewish state and some of those people were Jews. Oz proselytizes at length about the arguments against such a state and this is becomes a weakness because of its repetitions.
The second, and what gives the book a sense of a tensions-of-opposites, is the relationship between the main character and the one woman in it that plays a love interest. He has been working on a Master's Thesis about the relationship between Jesus and the Jews, specifically the relationship between Jesus and Judas. He drops out of school and takes a job helping out an old man by listening to him bitch. She is the daughter of one of the leading opponents to a Jewish state and the daughter in law of the cantankerous old man. The husband/son was killed in the war of independence in 1948. Whether they will consummate a friendship and whether he will stay there or leave is that tension of opposites.
A primary reason for recommending the book is Oz's descriptive ability. Oh, yeah, the book is worth reading because the description of The Crucifixion (starting on 262) It is simply riveting and almost gruesome......

Amos Oz, Israel's greatest living novelist, has long been known for political views that might be considered out of step with the majority of his fellow citizens. A recent profile in the New York Times describes him as an "avatar of an old-school liberal Zionism that many in Israel now deride as too dreamy and idealistic." Offering both a startling reinterpretation of the story of the despised disciple Judas Iscariot’s role in Jesus' crucifixion and an implicit defense of his own lifelong commitment to reconciliation between Jews and Arabs, Oz’s elegiac new novel, JUDAS, showcases that contrarian temperament.

Oz's protagonist, Shmuel Ash, overweight, asthmatic and sensitive, is a graduate student in Jerusalem in the winter of 1959. His fitful work on a master's thesis about Jewish views of Jesus has stalled, and when his family's business collapses and his girlfriend leaves him for another man, he impulsively abandons his studies. Answering a cryptic bulletin board ad, he finds his way to a Jerusalem neighborhood where, in exchange for an attic room and a small stipend, he's hired to serve as a conversational companion to Gershom Wald, an elderly, ailing intellectual who spends his evenings arguing with identified friends on the telephone, listening to news broadcasts and reading.

The house at No. 17 Rabbi Elbaz Lane, where Gershom lives, is haunted by memories of two men: Micha Wald, his son, a soldier murdered in an ambush a few weeks before the declaration of statehood in May 1948, and Shealtiel Abravanel, a one-time member of the Council of the Jewish Agency and Zionist Executive Committee, summarily ejected from his leadership positions for his heretical opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state. Connecting their lives is Atalia Abravanel, Shealtiel's daughter and Micha's widow, a beautiful and enigmatic woman who shares the house with Gershom and Shmuel and becomes a source of fascination for the young man after he accompanies her on several nighttime walks through the streets of a wintry Jerusalem that Oz describes in scenes of captivating beauty and occasional strangeness.

As Shmuel learns more about Shealtiel's futile advocacy for stateless coexistence between Arabs and Jews (a utopian vision to even the most optimistic observer), the linkage between Abravanel's story and that of Judas gradually comes into focus. Shmuel advances a new narrative for the biblical account, arguing that Judas, far from betraying Jesus, was in fact his most ardent believer and loyal follower, an answer to the historic condemnation of the Jewish people that has been the consequence of the bible's portrayal. As pointed out in a recent profile in The Guardian, Oz has had a lifelong fascination with this subject, spurred by a book written by his great-uncle, Joseph Klausner, in 1921 that "reclaimed Jesus as a Jew."

Oz spins out this radical theory in a poignant chapter told from Judas' point of view, describing his guilt over urging Jesus to travel to Jerusalem to spread his teachings when the crucifixion Judas masterminded failed to offer proof of his master's divinity. In this vivid account of Jesus' death, an anguished Judas describes how he "believed in him much more than he believed in himself." The loyal disciple's suicide when Jesus died, far from convicting him of betrayal, instead revealed his profound and singular grief.

Atalia's father was no less passionate in his advocacy against the establishment of a Jewish state, and no less a traitor in the eyes of its supporters. As recounted by Gershom, Abravanel contended in vain with David Ben-Gurion, Israel's principal founder and first prime minister in 1948, that it was "still possible to reach an agreement with the Arabs about the departure of the British and the creation of a single joint condominium of Jews and Arabs, if we only agreed to renounce the idea of a Jewish state." Gershom admits, "with no sense of shame," that he stood firmly in opposition to Abravanel's point of view.

Even if he doesn't necessarily share Abravanel's prescription for peaceful coexistence, Oz, who long has opposed the occupation that followed the Six-Day War in 1967 and has advocated for the so-called two-state solution, understands that the conflict that has endured for nearly six decades without any end in sight reveals the prescience of his fictional creation's pessimism about the course events would take. While he links the narratives of two men branded, for radically different reasons, as traitors, Oz is too serious a writer to offer even a hint of resolution of the complex and controversial arguments that comparison evokes. Instead, the restrained, elegant way in which he presents those claims in this somber novel allows them to resonate for readers long after they have read the final page.

Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg

*2 star rating given because the subject matter in this book simply does not interest me, not because I think it is a bad book. I believe a reader who is interested in the topics discussed at length in the book would have a completely different experience!

It is the end of 1959 and winter had come to the still-divided city of Jerusalem. For Shmuel Ash, the season was a time of change. Having recently abandoned his Master's thesis, titled 'Jewish Views of Jesus,' and losing both his girlfriend and the financial support of his father, he left university and became somewhat adrift. Now searching for a job, a handwritten notice seeking a companion with conversational skills for a 70-year-old invalid captured Shmuel's attention. Within days he moved into the small attic at the top of a spiral staircase and spent five hours each evening in conversation with Wald, and the remaining hours of the day were his.

As he settled in to his new role, Shmuel became intrigued by the two inhabitants of the old home, Wald and the beautiful but mysterious Atalia. What was the relationship between the two? Where did Atalia go when she left the house at all hours of the day and night? And why had she requested complete confidentiality for the job Shmuel had taken on? Answers to his questions were not exactly forthcoming.

The many free hours the job allowed meant Shmuel could do exactly as he wanted, to retreat from the world. He spent much of his time hidden away in the small attic room, with his books and lost in thoughts, and had a tendency to wander the cold and isolated streets at night. Despite Wald's warnings to not fall in love with Atalia, and similar warnings from Atalia herself, Shmuel became quite enamoured. His musings shifted from his ex-girlfriend, and bemoaning the fact that she left him for another man, to Atalia and searching for any meaning in her words or behaviour to show the feeling was mutual.

The narrative meanders slowly but steadily through the Jerusalum winter, driven by the evening conversations between Shmuel and Wald, the reading done by Shmuel to support his research thesis, and the awkward social encounters between Shmuel and Atalia.

Although I can understand why Judas was shortlisted for The Man Booker International Prize, I did not like it. Shmuel was incredibly unappealing, in physical appearance, mannerisms, gait and character, and this made it very difficult for me to enjoy the book. I found the description of his salient features unnecessarily repeated throughout the novel and this became irritating and distracting. I also found the 'relationship' between Shmuel and Atalia bizarre and unbelievable. Whilst we were privy to Shmuel's thoughts, Atalia's motivations remained a mystery to me and I found her actions toward Shmuel cruel and gratuitous.

The main reason I did not enjoy this book, however, is that I was simply not particularly interested in the subject matter. The narrative is very heavy with information, entire passages of text from Shmuel's reading at times, about the origins of Christianity, the perception of Jesus from both Jewish and Christian perspectives, and the role that Judas played and how he is perceived. The second major point of discussion throughout the book was the recent history of the State of Israel and it's politics. Whilst two separate and distinct threads of discussion, they did have common themes of loyalty and betrayal that rose to prominence. I am the first to admit, however, that I failed to engage with much of the book and read quite superficially, so there will be many more layers to this book that I simply did not appreciate.

This book was not for me, but that doesn't mean it is not a good book. There are many glowing reviews on Goodreads, and Judas was shortlisted for The Man Booker International Prize for 2017. For the right reader, I believe this would be a very good book. That reader is just not me. For that reason, I did not give Judas a star rating - I don't feel it is fair to give a book a poor rating simply because the topic does not interest me!

Amos Oz lacks one significant international prize, the Nobel Prize. Oz has delivered an extraordinary novel, JUDAS, burnishing his credentials to be considered for this prestigious award. Judas Iscariot has been the symbol of betrayal since the birth of Christianity as well as a handy and convenient symbol for anti-Semitism. After all, it was Judas who betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

In this novel, Oz examines betrayal on a number of levels, from self-betrayal to betrayal of a country and a people. It’s 1959 and Schmuel Ash, cut off from the largess of his parents, leaves university and his studies (his dissertation is on the Jewish view of Jesus) to take a job as a caretaker for a cantankerous old man, Gershom Wald. In the same house Atalia Abravanel, the daughter of the Zionist leader who was the lone voice against a Jewish state during the time of the partition, holds powerful sway over both men.

Ash’s socialist group disintegrates, with four of the six members at odds with the others. His girlfriend not only leaves him but also promptly marries another man, infinitely more boring and stable than Ash. Ash is a difficult character to like, likened to a bear with an unruly mop of hair and a long beard, both which he anoints with baby powder. Wald enjoys arguing by telephone with his few living enemies. What ties him to Atalia is his late son, and her husband.

This odd collection of damaged characters examines the early days of Israel, when survival was a real concern. During these days the possibility of compromise and accommodation died, reaping more than a half-century of turmoil, war and death.

Oz makes no apologies nor does he advocate for a position. He simply states.

One of the best books I have read this year. One of the few times you can agree with the blurb. JUDAS is indeed “Amos Oz’s most powerful novel in decades.”

The first two sentences of Amos Oz’s remarkable new novel read as follows: “Here is a story from the winter days of the end of 1959 [in Jerusalem] and the beginning of 1960. It is a story of error and desire, of unrequited love, and of a religious question that remains unresolved.” In the next three hundred or so pages, the author makes good on his promise with essentially three major characters and the ghosts of at least three others. Shmuel Ash is a university student with an unkempt Neanderthal beard who abandons his studies and takes a job as a caregiver for Gershom Wald, an old man with an Einstein moustache and described by his son as a dinosaur, who spends most of his waking hours dwelling on the past when he is not either arguing with callers on the phone or with Shmuel, his new caregiver. Atalia Abravanel, an aloof woman in her forties, who always smells of almonds, is the final of these three characters.

Much of the many discussions these three characters engage in in this novel of ideas has to do with the two differing opinions of David Ben-Gurion who held the opinion that war was necessary in inevitable for Israel to become an independent state and Shealtiel Abravanel who opposed Israel’s claim of statehood and was thusly labeled a traitor. (Mr. Oz has said in recent interviews that he has been called a traitor too. He also states that he does not take either side of the argument in his novel.) Another frequent topic of discussion is the story of Judas, traditionally the disciple of Jesus who betrayed him for thirty pieces of silver and—again to quote Mr. Oz—a story that is the “Chernobyl of world anti-Semitism.” (Before leaving university, Shmuel was working on a master’s thesis, “Jewish Views of Jesus.”)

Mr. Oz is such a master of language. “Laughter was a rare visitor.” Shmuel goes looking under his bed for a “sock that had gone absent without leave.” And one morning when he takes an early walk in Jerusalem, “there was no rain, just a few gray tatters of clouds crossing the sky on their way to the sea from the desert.” I am sold on the author’s under-stated humor as well. Gershom in one of his many monologues/discussions with Shmuel—to illustrate his belief that “millions of simple Christians” consider all Jews treacherous because they are associated with the “traitor” Judas-- relates the story of, as a young man, sitting on a train opposite of two Polish nuns, one older and more severe; the other young and innocent. When Gershom opens up a Hebrew newspaper, they discover that he is Jewish. The younger nun tearfully says: “’But He was so, so sweet, how could you have done that to Him?’” Gershom says that he wanted to say so badly that at the time of the Crucifixion he had a dental appointment.

JUDAS of course touches on the universal: the never-ending grief of parents who lose children; the hard questions about war, any war; the comfort of finding a home and of course love.

A fine novel indeed.

This absorbing and thought-proving novel takes us back to Jerusalem in the 1950s when the city was divided between Israel and Jordan with a dangerous no-man's land between them. It is the small, provincial city that Amos Oz grew up in and which he wrote about in his early novel "My Michael." In this book, which takes place over the course of a rainy winter, a dream-like mist engulfs the city -- and the protagonists. One could imagine this being shot as a black-and-white movie, with the fog, wet gleaming pavings stones and dripping trees forming an atmospheric backdrop.

Schmuel Ash, a young, idealistic graduate student with an unruly beard, has dropped out of his studies where he was pursuing a thesis about Jewish views of Jesus through the ages. Alienated from his family and reeling from the failure of a love affair, he is an isolated figure, unable to connect to any group. He is particularly fixated on a fellow outsider, the figure of Judas Iscariot, whom he imagines as the first real Christian rather than the perfidious traitor Christianity painted him as.

Shmuel answers an advertisement and is hired to become the companion of an old man, Gershom Wald, who lives with the widow of his son Micha, who died some years before fighting for Israel's independence. Shmuel's job is to talk to the old man for several hours a day and feed him his evening meal. He is encouraged to engage in arguments.

We learn that the widow, Atalia, was the daughter of a disgraced Zionist leader, Shealtiel Abravanel, now deceased, who opposed Ben Gurion and the decision to declare Israeli independence in 1948, holding out the hope that Jews and Arabs could reconcile and live in the land together. As a result, Abravenel was expelled from his positions, shunned as a traitor and written out of the history books. He is the second Judas figure of the novel.

It becomes clear that this is a novel about loyalty and treason, about a religion based on love which quickly turned to hatred and about nationalism and tribalism. It is doubly ironic that Amos Oz himself is now branded by the political right in Israel as a traitor and fifth columnist because of his dovish views on the peace process and the need to establish a Palestinian state.

In Schmuel's retelling, Judas was the most educated and worldly of Jesus' followers who became a fanatic believer in his role as the Messiah and the son of God. Judas orchestrated the crucifixion so that Jesus could perform the ultimate miracle of defying death while hanging on the cross. He believed that Jesus would somehow be able through his miraculous powers to resurrect himself in front of the throng of assembled witnessed. When, instead, he dies in agony on the cross, Judas has no recourse but to ill himself. This book incidentally contains a spine-chilling depiction of the crucifixion.

Shealtiel likewise believed in turning the other cheek, despite all the evidence that war between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine was inevitable. He plays God -- while his son is sacrificed on the altar of Israeli independence

As we move through the winter, Schmuel develops a sexual fixation toward the enigmatic widow Atalia -- and becomes a son-like figure for the old man Gershom. But these are all characters broken on the wheel of history, unable to moved beyond their losses.Schuel, we learn, regards himself also as a traitor for disappointing his family.

There are so many circles within circles in this book and so much to think about. It does have a claustrophobic, dreamlike atmosphere as the characters move lethargically through their lives, chained to their destinies. This is a fitting addition to Amos Oz's wonderful career as the chronicler and conscience of Israel.

I have always wanted to read something by Amos Oz, one of Israel’s foremost novelists. JUDAS is both fascinating and perplexing. The novel is largely a character study enlarged by lengthy digressions about Biblical scholarship and the roots of Zionism, which are both interesting and distracting from the plot
.
The book revolves around three lonely, complicated people brought together in an old house in Jerusalem where secrets lurk in every corner. Shmuel Ash is a self-hating Biblical scholar in his twenties, disappointed by love, his parents and his dissertation topics--early Jewish attitudes about Jesus—about which he fails to cover new ground. When his parents suffer financial reverses and can no longer support him, he quits school and accepts a job to care for an elderly, housebound invalid, Gershom Wald, who is mourning the loss of his only son, Micha, who died fighting for Israel to become a state in 1948. Atalia Abravanel, Micha’s widow, is a bitter woman whose father, Shealtiel Abravanel, back in the day, opposed the idea of a Jewish state, hoping, instead, that Jews and Arabs could live in harmony. His ideas branded him a Judas of his time. Shmuel is sympathetic to the dead scholar’s viewpoint.

Shealtiel’s arguments echo, of course, current conversations. “We tell ourselves that we only came to this land ‘to build and to be rebuilt,’” Shmuel says to Gershom, “but you tell me if there is any other people in this world who would welcome with open arms an incursion of hundreds of…millions of strangers…with the weird claim that their holy scriptures…promise this whole land to them and them alone?”

The characters in the book are beautifully wrought. Each comes alive. But the politics in JUDAS are heavy-handed, presented in long-winded passages that sound very little like conversation or even internal dialogue. The book is driven by question of whether or not Shmuel, who falls in love with Atalia, will form a rewarding relationship with her. As a love story, I found the story less than fulfilling, and while I intrigued by the book’s politics, at times I felt as if I were reading non-fiction, not a novel.

Judas long ago achieved infamy for the kiss and betrayal of Jesus in exchange for thirty silver coins. In modern (and not-so-modern) times, his name has been associated with betrayal or treason. What does Judas have to do with the new book by Amos Oz?

Shmuel, an asthmatic and bouncy young man leaves university after a family financial crisis and finds himself as a caregiver to an elderly man named Gershom Wald. Gershom is incapacitated but has retained his ability to enjoy spirited debates. Shmuel—whose graduate studies focused on “Jewish Views of Jesus” – is a good foil.

As Shmuel’s exploration of his topic depends, under Gershom’s guidance, he views Judas as a spy sent by the Jewish authorities to expose Jesus as a charlatan. But Judas becomes a true believer, encouraging Jesus to go further and lobbying the chief priest to crucify Jesus so that he can rise from the cross.

The novel is quite philosophical and, I suspect, I only scratched the surface in my understanding of it. Atalia, who lives with Gershom (and whom Shmuel becomes besotten with) reveals that her own father had stood alone in opposing David Ben-Gurion about the creation of Israel. By supporting unpopular views, was he a traitor? What is the fine line between being treacherous and being principled? Is someone who crosses the line from faith to apostasy essentially a traitor?

For its thoughts and ideas, this book is certainly a 5-star, one to be admired. Yet I would be less than honest if I said I enjoyed my reading experience, which was more like 3-star. I’d recommend Judas to those who gravitate to books that are steeped in ideas.

Amos Oz's "Judas" in an interesting, but slow novel. Oz does an exceptional job of portraying time, place, and emotion--in this case: 1959, Jerusalem, and love and rejection (to include in an allegorical sense). This is a novel where heavy on biblical and Zionist themes filled with historical details and characters related to the creation of Israel and all the conflict surrounding it (both before and after).

On the surface, it's the story of a twenty-something biblical scholar, who's left school due to family financial problems and moved in with an opinionated old man in order to keep him company and provide a source for conversation. The old guy (Gershom Wald) is by far the most interesting character in the book, but unfortunately Oz spends more time on the somewhat mousy and whiny scholar (Schmuel Ash). Ash is more or less a glorified late night babysitter, but the conversations between him and Wald are highlights of this novel. Also resident in the home, is an attractive forty-something woman, who happens to be the widowed daughter-in-law of Wald and the daughter of a late Zionist leader.

The relationships and interactions between these three, and especially the young scholar and the widow drive the story and provide some tension and drama, albeit slowly, but it's the history that makes this novel an interesting read.

Interesting book. It will hold your attention, however it is a book in which practically nothing happens. The setting is Jerusalem, the time period is 1959 and 1960. Shmuel Ash is a disillusioned student who is dropping out of university. He is definitely a geek, smart, weak willed and weak in body. He is also asthmatic. Since Shmuel has no plans for his life he answers a job advertisement to spend 6 hours a day with an invalid. Shmuel applies and is hired to listen and talk with his charge, Gershom Wald. Wald is old,and severely handicapped although he is quite brilliant. These two misfits slowly bond and much of the book is their interesting conversations. Listening to what they have to say tells us about their character. They become well known to the reader. The only other inhabitant of the house is Atalia, who is Wald's beautiful, widowed daughter-in-law. There is 20 years difference in the ages of Shmuel and Atalia, yet the boy becomes infatuated with the widow. This IS the story, the way these 3 people interact and relate to each other. These 3 lonely individuals have secrets, Each person is needy, yet all are private and solitary. The situation is peppered with good conversation and Oz is an excellent writer. He has won a number of literary awards, and has written numerous books.

Amos Oz is well known to me. A friend recommended one of his books, and since that time I have read several of his 36 books. Oz is Israels best known writer, the winner of almost every award except for the Pulitzer, and most people expect that will come soon.

In this book 'Judas', we find the protagonist, Shmuel Ash, in the winter of 1959, leaving his university in Jerusalem, because his girlfriend decides to marry another man, and Shmuel's sudden disinterest in his thesis about Judas of Iscariot. Wondering what to do he comes upon a notice of a live-in companion needed for an elderly man. .He answers the ad, accepts the job as the companion to the elderly man who is incapacitated. Gershom Wald the man, wants someone to talk and argue with. Atalia, an older beautiful woman, who is Wald's caretaker interviews him. Shmuel for a small sum and room and board works for 5 to 6 hours in the evening talking and arguing with Wald. He finds the discussions stimulating, and Wald convinces Shmuel to continue his studies about Jesus and Jews, which brings him back to Judas.

During Shmuel's studies he realizes that though Judas was considered to have committed treason against Jesus. by most people, Shmuel wonders is all treason bad? His discussions with Wald opens his eyes to what is realistic and what is improbable. At the same time, Atalia reveals the acts of someone close to her. It seems that treason and loyalty may often be entwined. Shmuel also finds an irresistible urge to be with Atalia . He falls in love with her, and the story she has disclosed about a relative brings meaning to his studies of Jews and Jesus.

Judas is a book that envelops you. Like most of Amos Oz's books,they are so well written that at times you feel part of the book you are reading. This is a love story, and it is also a story of Oz's political views of his beloved Israel.

Recommended. 09-28-16

This novel drew me in quickly and brought me magically to another era and another land. Oz has certainly drawn on all the powers of his writing talent to create a timeless picture of Jerusalem and three conflicted, idealistic, thoughtful, passionate people. Whether he follows through on the promise of the novel is debatable. Sometimes he seems to be writing a polemic on the Jewish/Arab situation, with a novel thinly wrapped around it. The main character's hope of leaving the stodgy and backward-looking Jerusalem for the dynamic towns of the south seems like a false solution, although it parallels Oz's own life. Some of the repetition in the novel is strategic and structural, but some is just repetition. I really don't need the prospects for a one-state Palestinian solution rehashed over and over, nor do I need a retelling of the Jesus story that recycles an oft-promulgated romanticism. One more criticism of this book that is unusually beautiful and engaging: the female characters seem to conform to some male fantasy and lack the coherence of the two main male characters.

Amos Oz’s 2016 English version of his 2014 Hebrew “Judas,” expertly translated by Nicholas Lange, is, just as his over two dozen other books, a work of art, a thoughtful story written in splendid prose.
It is 1959 and early 1960 in Jerusalem, a city that at that time, before the 1967 war that reclaimed Jerusalem for Jews, was surrounded by Jordanians on three sides. It is winter, cold. People are somber. Oz captures the atmosphere of the time.
A young man, Shmuel Ash, a socialist, the main character of the novel, is unable to continue his university studies because his father, who was supporting him, goes bankrupt. He believes that this is why he quite. But while the family has no money, his father and mother are encouraging Shmuel to take a job and support himself and use the funds to complete his MA and move forward to his PhD, which his professor tells him there is a good chance he will get. The professor also offers to help him. But for some reason, Shmuel is unable to continue.
He takes a job caring for an elderly man who is sad, embittered, and dissatisfied. The man had lost his son in the 1948 war of Israel’s Independence. Shmuel’s job is to speak with him several hours every day. He is offered a small sum of money and free lodging. There are three people in the house: he, the elderly man, and a widow Atalia Abravanel was the wife of the son of the elderly man. He falls in love with the widow who is 45 years old, twice his age. The old man warns him not to fall in love with her. He tells Shmuel that he is not his first caretaker. There were three other caretakers before him. They also fell in love with her. She rejected them all. The old man tells Shmuel that she will die, as she wants to do, unmarried.
Atalia seems as embittered as her father-in-law. She was married to his son for two years. Her husband had joined the military despite the strong opposition of his wife, his father, and his wife’s father. He died after being captured by Arabs, tortured, and having his penis cut off and placed in his mouth.
Atalia’s father strongly and persistently believed that Jews and Arabs can live together, and the Jews should therefore not try to establish a state. He was rejected and reviled by Jews and Arabs whom he tried to help.
At the university and still now, Shmuel was fascinated by Judas, the disciple of Jesus. His understanding of Judas’ story and Judas’ actions explain the thinking and behaviors of all the characters in the novel. Contrary to what is stated or implied in the New Testament, Shmuel is convinced that Judas loved Jesus. He was the true disciple of Jesus, closer to Jesus than the other disciples. He was convinced that he would find a way to publicize the divinity of Jesus. He persuaded Jesus to let himself be hung on a poll by the Romans, but after hanging for a while, step away from the poll showing he could not be killed. This act, Judas told Jesus, will impress people and bring thousands to his side. Unfortunately, his plan did not work.
When Jesus died, Judas was considered a traitor. He was reviled by everyone. Despite his good intentions, despite his hard work, despite his many attempts to help others, nothing good came of his efforts. He, Judas, was seen by too-many Christians as the only Jew among Christians, and they hated other Jews because of him, for they see Judas and all Jews as traitors.
Readers will find it interesting to compare the thinking and acts of all the characters in 1959 Jerusalem with the youth’s understanding of Judas. They will also be interested in discovering what happens to all of the people in the book.

Amos Oz never disappoints, and this is certainly the case in his latest novel “Judas”. This novel revolves around the years 1959/60. There are three main eccentric characters, who are well described in this amazing novel. The background to the novel is Israel’s constant problems with her Arab neighbours.

A young biblical student, Shmuel Ash, whose interest is the study of the New Testament and the Jewish attitude to Jesus Christ and the traitor Judas Iscariot. He left his studies because of financial problems. He lived with his parents in Haifa then moved to Jerusalem to study. Shmuel Ash is asthmatic and had an enlarged heart. After he left his studies, he found a job advertised on a poster in the university canteen. The job offer was companionship to an elderly, cantankerous 70 year old, crippled gentleman, Gershom Wald, who lost a son, Micha, in the 1948 War of Independence. He needed a friend for intellectually, stimulating conversation as well as for preparing light meals for him.

Another character in the novel is Atalia, the widow of Micha and daughter of deceased Shealtiel Abravanel.

Gershom Wald and Atalia live in the same place that was owned by Shealtiel Abravanel, who was viewed as an “Arab lover” and a traitor to Israel and the Zionist movement. Shmuel was offered a small salary for his companionship. Alitalia, who was in her mid forties and still very attractive ran the home. Shmuel who was in his mid 20s was attracted by Atalia but she kept her distance from him. Somehow, despite their age difference and her rather trite treatment of him, Shmuel was very shy of her and she dominated him in her manner.

The author had done his reading on Jesus and the New Testament and this had always featured in the conversations between Shmuel and Gershom Wald. There is much philosophy in their dialogues and this does not bore the reader not even for a moment.
The relationships between these three main characters in the novel is interesting and each character is quite well defined that it allows the reader to obtain a very vivid picture of them as if they are real.

A message for the reader is that Judas Iscariot was a revolutionary which is synonymous to being a traitor. His love for Jesus is actually well portrayed.

This book is really well written, vivid and an excellent read. It holds one’s interest throughout and despite its heaviness at times, it was never daunting or boring in any way. It deserves a five star rating out of five.

"Judas" is another brilliant book written by Amos Oz. This more than just a novel, it is an intellectual exercise delving into ancient Judaism and the roots of Christianity as well as the founding of the State of Israel But, this book is more than just history; we also see the intertwined lives of three people. An elderly man, his caregiver/Biblical Scholar, and a beautiful woman who entices and repeals at the same time.

No matter what your religious beliefs may be, this story is one that is gripping and will pull you in from the start. It was a hard book for me to put down and one that gave me pause to think about and imagine what was, what is, and what the future may hold.

This is the second book I've read by Oz and look forward to reading more.

Amos Oz deserves his reputation as one of the foremost Israeli novelists. His work is complex, full of narrative power, and takes on significant themes without being unduly burdened by them.

This latest work is no exception: Oz wraps betrayals of all kinds, political and business and personal, inside a sort of love story and inside the narrative of would-be scholar who studies the Jewish view of Judas and Jesus. Every character in the book has been betrayed and betrays someone else. Everyone is crippled or injured somehow, though most of them manage some accomodation with continuing to live in some bleak manner. Even Jerusalem is bleak - rainy and cold.

A good deal of the book is taken up with a fictional figure from the early history of the state of Israel, who advocated for coexistence with the Arabs and who was forced to resign from his political responsibilities. I don't want to give away how this man figures in the book or how the other characters relate to him - but contrasting his point of view with that of Ben Gurion is part of what Oz is doing.

So how does this novel combine so many ideas with a compelling narrative? There's a love story, there's an interesting viewpoint character, there are plenty of events that work themselves out very strangely. Is the whole thing just an allegory for Israeli politics? No, there is a story here. I'll leave it to you to follow it. Oz is a master storyteller with a strong point of view.

The story involves 3 characters; Shmuel, a young student who takes a job living with and caring for Gershon, a sickly old man. His widowed daughter , Atalia lives there too. Her husband died in Israel's war of Independence and her father S. Abravanel is considered a traitor by the
Israeli public because he opposed Ben Gurion's vision of an Israeli state. The author uses this story to explore this issue of betrayal linking it to
Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus as well as his take on Jewish views of Jesus as well. It's a rich, powerful and compelling story which is
beautifully told.

I would like to thank NetGalley and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for the copy of "Judas" by Amos Oz.
Growing up in Israel, Amos Oz is a highly admired author in my home, and well regarded in his writing. Amos Oz did not disappoint. This intelligently written story, takes place in Jerusalem, almost 10 years after the conception of Israel, as a nation. The main character is soul searching, and finds himself in an unusual living arrangement. His hosts and employers of this home, provoke many clever discussions about religion (mostly Jews views on Jesus), traitors, sacrifices, nationalism, the Jewish-Arab conflict, and many other interesting perspectives. While he "hibernates" he gradually finds his way and is ready to turn a new leaf in his life. With a dysfunctional love affair peppered in, the characters are quirky, unusual, and quite fantastic.

Judas is a wonderful novel with engaging characters and dilemmas. Shmuel, a young Israeli, left his studies when his father's business failed. His study focused on Judas and his relationship with Jesus and he continues to struggle with his ideas as he takes on a job helping care for an old man who likes to argue with him. It's 1959 in Jerusalem, and the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis continues and is another topic of debate. The third character in this story is the daughter in law of the old man. There is much more to this story than I can say here, but I highly recommend it to people interested in the history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and with the various versions of the story of Jesus and Judas.

Pure enjoyment. It's increasingly difficult to find a good book that is well written, not filled with gore and yet still engaging...this book is all of those things. The writing is easy and flows from the page. The story is good - not so complex that the reader gets bogged down but not so light that its predictable...perfect for a few hours of enjoyment on a lazy weekend afternoon. I'm totally smitten by this author...this was my first exposure to his writings but hopefully not the last. Creative, original story with an almost lyrical quality to the writing style. Very absorbing - from the first few pages you will want to keep going. The descriptions of both places and people give the reader a very real sense of authenticity which adds to the overall impact.

Being a detail oriented person who is interested in Philosophy, Religion and Sociology, I appreciate the writing style of Amos Oz. While other authors may say something in a few words, he takes his time and notes things which create a very specific and concrete picture. Judas can be read and appreciated by someone with no knowledge of the biblical refrence,or it can be studied and analyzed. Regardless, the characters and their interactions are equally as stunning as the story.

In Oz's beautifully structured paragraphs, a disaffected grad student, whose topic is the Jewish view of Jesus, spends a life-altering Jerusalem winter with an elderly crippled scholar and his cynical daughter-in law. It's a bildungsroman that the central character seems to keep hoping will become a roman a clef - which is perhaps how many of us see our own narratives, that somehow the point of it all will emerge. There are long conversations - really tradings in speeches. There's a compelling literary-historical theory concerning - you guessed it - Judas. And there's a perfect, perfect ending - the best ending.

Oz is a great writer and his translator is superb. I read and enjpyed many of his books. Yet, in "Judas" he tries to accomplish too much, unsuccessfully. I found it hard to decide whether the book was about Shmuel and his solitude, Judas and his betrayal of Jesus, or the philosophical questions about the creation of the state of Israel. As Oz is a consumate writer, I was hoping he would pull all those topics together in a grand ginale. Sadly, that didn't happen. And instead, the books drags on, with long disquisitions about Jews and Arabs, the crucifixion, and excruciating details on Shmuel's daily routines. I kept wondering: is the author using this book as a platform to express his political ideas? Wouldn't it be better if he simply wrote an essay about it and then a novel about Shmuel?

Marvelous Historical fiction book. Oz has the ability to combine modern day Israel and the historic events leading to the creation of The State of Israel in 1948. Another layer is the role of Judas in the acceptance of Chritianity in the world. Also Oz presents ongoing arguments for and against a 1 or 2 state country. The layers in this book present a full reading experience to understanding Israel its complexities and conflicts.

This novel is a towering achievement of an amazing writer. The unhurried, detailed narrative leads the readers on an unforgettable journey of knowledge and discovery. Beautifully written and populated with fascinating characters, this novel is a must-read for anybody who is curious about this great writer of Israeli literature.

First a disclaimer. I love Amos Oz. Pretty much everything he writes. And Judas is no exception. This is a parallel story of loss and redemption of the historical character of Judas and the contemporary man. It moves well, is quite interesting and is redemptive.

Bend the Jews, Make Amos Standing Proud

Our Arad settler Amos Oz* typed a new manuscript devoted to an imaginary Israeli researcher who concentrated on the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth.
Mr. Oz mentions—and I trust him and his sources—that some passages in the Babylonian Talmud devoted to the Galilean preacher were subsequently dropped by rabbinic authorities. It could be done—so suggests Amos—due to fear of Christians or just to save Jews from Jesus.
“Jesus was associated with sinners, publicans and harlots,” writes our esteemed novelist.
Yeshua-Jesus was one of the wonderworkers of that time, and our author refers to Klausner as one of his references.
I might be wrong but “Klausner” is the German last name of Amos's father. So it runs in the family. But what runs? What is supported by the Klausners' Y-chromosome? I would argue that it has been the doubt in Jewish ethno-religious groups, their lifestyles and their servitude to Germanity up to a point of becoming more German than Germans themselves.
As for the crux of Amos's narrative, it uses the rather old thesis that without Judas, no Christianity could take wing.
OK, I can buy it, with a side note, that Jesus guided and encouraged Judas to help his mentor to become visible and enter the much coveted the realm of victimhood.

The epigraph chosen by Amos Oz is the line by Nathan Alterman:
See the traitor run in the field alone. Let the dead, not the living now cast the first stone.
[‘The Traitor'
From “The Joy of the Poor”]
I would argue that Amos Oz is precisely such a traitor because nowadays the State of Israel is a Jesus** (note the fury of the sharply anti-Semitic shards of the Holy Roman Empire and the leftist progressives) and Mr. Oz is catering to the enemies of the Jewish sovereignty in Palestine.
Mr. Oz becomes a new Judas ready to throw Israel under an Anglo-German bus.
Yet, he is doing it softly, with finesse.
Take this sentence in the chapter 44:
“Across Palestine and Transjordan was written ‘Palestine’. “
Amos knows well that Transjordan is a part of Palestine. But his British masters who are responsible for publishing his handsome volumes, for his presentations, his nominations and invitations might think otherwise. So he does his double entendre. He wants the sheep to survive and the wolves not to be hungry. Amos the writer is a demigod.
On a side Oz-Klausner keeps his privileges and his thirty pieces of silver. Anything can be done for the much desirable Nobel Prize. No Israeli writer got it since Shmuel Yosef Agnon. Amos keeps his fingers crossed.
Amos Oz's Oxford stay tremendously impressed him. His mentors converted him into the Anglo-Germanic Josephus Flavius of modern times. “Kudos!”

The translator did a good job revealing the undertow of a professional writer catering to his benefactors and bosses in Europe:
“Outside, in the wadi patches of fog drifted like dirty cotton wool.”
The key word is “dirty.”
Though the Terre Sainte is horribly trashed but its bands of fog look clean.
Mr. Klausner-Oz has programmed himself to fall in line with the old Notre Dame sculpture of Judea displaying conformity, remorse and defeat.
It makes his British editors plain happy.
They know what the Jews and their spiritual leaders who are trying to lead their national liberation struggle must and mustn't do.
And the co-opted talented writer does his best to please them.
Yet, I appreciate his terms “Grand Liban,” “secretaire,” “shapka”*** and his haikuish passage:
“a tangle of passionflower that clung to the roughness of the stone with fierce tendrils.”

Haiku and senryu from Cisjordan

Mount of Beatitudes
denuded of its black stones—
bananas planted

kibbutz woman
with her Russian Russian looks...
Cossacks, oh, Cossacks!

Israeli cuke:
on its very tip
a yellow flower

hardware store:
its yarmulkeless keeper
has fallen asleep

Kabbalah, Kabbalah...
it's all the hypothesis,
sorry

Torah study room
the wall clock hands
do not move

March morning
in the Upper Galilee
the dewless meadow

and my recent maeku:

among anachronists
I am looking for my flash memory
in between siddurs

Haibun for Hammat Gader

I flew the colors of Hammat Gader (El Hamma) at the peace rally in Ghent, 2015.
A huge peace banner was supposed to be unfurled on a sryscraper but it didn't work and the enormous canvass fell into the gutter.
In my awful Runglish, I imparted with the hundreds of attendees how vacationing Muslims, Jews, atheists, Druze, Christians and, perhaps, Buddhists come together in a manner of peaceful coexistence. The curative waters have been flowing through centuries for Canaanites, Nabateans, Hebrews, Greeks, Imperial Romans, and, finally, Mohammedan Arabs who entered and conquered the Byzantine Palestine through the Yarmuk Valley where the sulfuric springs of Hammat Gader are located.
And melodic thoughts are streaming in my relaxed brain. Time was introduced by the Almighty not to allow all the due events to happen at once.
And I recall this Amos Oz's reaction to my remark that he was, in fact, wrong. He agreed with me! He always wanted to be nice. All the following discussion with him was out of question. Yet, minutes before he succeeded in poisoning uncritical minds with his appeasement message and his wishy-washy concept of the further subdivision of the land and thus the low intensity conflict simmering on and on.
Well, his alter ego Shmuel Ash (note “ash,” the music to the ears of the Nobel Prize decision makers) wants the British Palestine perpetuation, namely, Arabs and Jews living together, no law of return for motherland-less Jews, no Jewish right for self-determination. Jewish minority again, ah, good old times!
In return, please, finally, cough up the Nobel Prize for Amos Oz who, on one hand, proclaims to be ready to fight for the indefensible State of Israel humiliated and pushed within its “green line” in 1966! And on the other hand he dreams of Brentrance, “I miss you, my civilized Englishmen!”
His writer’s craft is superb and poetic; his crafty balance in politics suggests the international rule in Palestine. Oh, yes! The international powers issue the much coveted Nobel award as well...
In the Webster New World Thesaurus [by Charlton Laird, Warner Books, 1974] we read, “traitor, betrayer, traducer, deserter, renegade, Judas, informer, spy, hypocrite, imposter, plotter, conspirator, turncoat, sneak, backslider.” All these words carry some negative connotations and they are all applicable to our esteemed writer. In order to atone for his sin of vanity, Amos Oz should research the Holocaust horrors in Eastern Europe and write about them.
He might learn how the international community “protected” the Yiddish-speaking population in Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine and Bessarabia. One might even imagine the degree of security in Palestine not divided into the Kingdom of Jordan, Israel, Gaza and the Arab autonomy in Samaria and Judea. And he might lament Judeans slated for assimilation and disappearance in the USA, Europe, the Near East and Russia.
(One might travel to the roadblock between Brookline and Boston in the USA and get an insight.)

we see the beginning
but the rebbe sees the end
first day of spring

*) Amos Oz. Amos is the name of a famous prophet and
the Hebraized surname Oz— his father Klausner acquired it— means “strength, courage.”
**) I heard this comparison first from Pinchas Polonsky
(books and lectures) and I used it in my poem devoted to Dmitry Bykov-Zilbertrud, a talented littérateur teaching in Russia and the US. Being of Jewish ancestry Mr. Bykov is of Jewish ancestry and wins points by being negative towards Israel and its Tel Aviv concept.
***) “Shapka” is a Russian word for "headgear."

Excellent writing, story telling, and character development. Also, I learned a great deal about the subject and it has spurred my interest in reading other books on the issue. I've thought about this book a lot since I have read it.

A trite , cartoonish , comic book .. It is well written but naive with a clear lack of understanding of human nature. The author's political point of view clouds any redeeming value or objectivity in the novel. The characters do not represent human beings but false mannequins speaking the author's politics

The Samson Option (The Samson Option Series Book 1) Shmuel says to Atalia, about Jesus, "I love him." What a startling statement. He says later, "If only the Jews had accepted him, the whole of history would have been different. There would never have been a Christian Church. The whole of Europe might have adopted a milder, purer form of Judaism." As a reader, I am reeling from this suggestion. The thought takes my breath away. But wait. Paul the apostle writes in Romans 11:25-29 the when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved. Paul suggest a remnant will be preserved and became the nation of Israel in 1948, which leads to the rest of this novel which is about the validity of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Amos Oz asks the reader to rethink history, including the role of Judas. I'm intrigued out of my mind with all the possibilities this novel presents.

Yes, a few readers have complained about the dullness of the routine in the little house on the edge of Jerusalem. I also thought I didn't need to read about Shmuel buttering and eating another thick slice of bread, or drinking another glass of tea. But these ordinary details counter balance the magnificent weight of the conversations between the three main characters.

In Judas, Amos Oz explores the topic of traitors, or at least those who have been labelled traitors by their contemporaries and/or history. The main character, Shmuel, a young man coming of age in early 1960's Israel, toys with a dissertation in which he reimagines Judas as the only true believer in the divinity of Jesus who hastened Jesus' death because of his belief that Jesus was not mortal and could not be killed. Judas has a parallel in the history of Shmuel's time, a man who was an insider in the Zionist movement and who advocated for a secular Israel where the Palestinians were free to continue to live. The suggestion that the Palestinians should be allowed to stay in 1948 when Israel was created was regarded as heresy by the rest of the Zionist leaders, and the advocate was cast out of power and lived the rest of his life in solitude. From the standpoint of today, many, including myself, wish Israel had followed the course of secularism and inclusion. And many of us feel that a secular country where all have equal rights is the only possible solution at this point, though it may be decades and much more spilled blood and killing away. This exploration of the topic - who is a traitor and who is a hero - is superbly written and very relevant to the situation in Israel and Palestine today.

This is a book about purposelessness, about aimlessness, about failed hopes and dead dreams. It was hard for me to get involved with the lackadaisical protagonist, Shmuel Ash, hard to feel sympathy with the widowed Alatalia and her teasing ways, or with the patriarchal invalid Wald and his endless ironies. The bleakness of Jerusalem in winter forms an appropriate but energy-sapping background to the emptiness of the three lives we meet in this book.

The ostensible point is that there might have been an alternative to the Israeli-Arab conflict that has poisoned the second half of the 20th century and bids fair to poison at least the first half of the 21st. It may be that the institutional views of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim conflicts are all wrong-headed. But even if that is so, these views are so deeply embedded in belief, that setting them straight is near-impossible.

And in showing us the aridity of these lives, Oz seemt to be acknowledging that impossibility.