About book The Betrayal: The Lost Life Of Jesus: A Novel (2008)
Reads much like a Dan Brown novel, and in that way it's pretty good. I know that the Gears have written many other books prior to this one, most of which follow the same historical fiction pattern, as best I know, but still I wouldn't be surprised if the inspiration for writing this book came almost entirely from Brown's recent success. If you're expecting Dan Brown thrill, however, don't get your hopes up. Though the book possesses that have-to-think-fast-figure-stuff-out-before-they-do-and-stay-alive-the-whole-time style, the story is not quite of the same caliber and certainly not of the 24-hour variety like a Brown novel.The review on the cover of my edition claims that the novel is sure to stir up controversy and attract a wide readership. I can't imagine either of those things to be true if it was published in 2007 and I hadn't heard of it. I bought this book at an estate sale because it sounded interesting. The readership that the Gears had from their other books is probably the only readership they still have. I say this only to point out that the intentions of this book surely missed the mark.Unfortunately, unlike the Brown novels, the Gears have a clear theological and historical agenda in writing this book. Clearly they both are well learned in all the appropriate fields to write a book claiming to get at the real life and end of Jesus, or at least to get closer than the accepted traditions. Much of the book, too, is footnoted with references to the Bible, the non-canonical texts, historical facts, and other ancient literature. There's even an interview with the Gears at the end of my edition in which the Gears defend the positions taken in the book. All of this adds to the perception that the fictional history here is more fact than fiction and that we should revise our understanding of Jesus and his life and death on scholarly and faith grounds; the major target being the Council of Nicaea and Constintinian Christianity that, supposedly, has forced a fabricated revisionism that now necessitates their more truthful revisions. First of all, if the Gears simply wrote this novel and let it stand, I'd think much more highly of it. Or, if they took a more Brown-like approach and said, "Here are some facts and verses, and now I've woven a cool story," I'd think much more highly of it. The story is a good one, keeps you wanting more. Some of the characters are a little too simply contrived but they all serve their purposes well. Clearly the story is also very creative, especially as it weaves into biblical history, and for that I'd have to credit the Gears with genius. Yet they do not let the book stand without the agenda.From the very beginning, with an authors' introduction, the Gears set out three propositions, all intertwined: 1) Jesus died a bodily death and was not resurrected; 2) Because Constantine was such a power-hungry jerk, the Church manufactured a very narrow faith that most people knew to be badly biased; 3) For the sake of misguided uniformity the Church then violently suppressed the many who disagreed and purposely suppressed knowledge that didn't suit the new theology. These arguments are not new. No one should be particularly surprised. A layperson who may be encountering the foundations of these propositions for the first time might be persuaded out of mere shock, since the Gears a) make it seem so right, b) make it seem as if we're all stupid for not seeing through the BS before. Of course, any knowledgeable person knows that Constantine was a power-hungry jerk and that the Church did create uniform theology at the Council of Nicaea. The first problem, though, is that the Gears make up a bunch of stuff to exaggerate the folly of the Church. Indeed, creating uniform theology should not be deemed as an awful maneuver on the Church's part: a consensus had more or less been formed on which texts and which traditions best captured the life of Christ and God's love and purpose. It wasn't a conspiracy, though it can certainly be viewed that way. In effect, the Gears cleverly construct an emotional response to their story intended to subtly force the reader into agreeing with them. That's a shame. And often falsely founded.Further, the Gears are sometimes wrong or contradictory. One example is that they use a biblical passage in which the crowd around Jesus calls him mad and Jesus's family, fearing for what the crowd may do to him, come and take him away, to say that Jesus's own family considered him mad. With the little Greek that I know I can say quite confidently that the Gears misread the passage. And I don't mean "misread" as a bad interpretation, I mean "misread" as flat wrong and incredibly misleading. Another issue is that in the introduction the Gears state that our traditional understanding of Jesus can't be right because that Jesus would have been a threat to no one, but then they proceed to paint the same picture of Jesus only without the divinity and resurrection. The contradiction is misleading, to say the least. Again, none of this would matter if the Gears weren't actively trying to push an agenda.There are some logical issues as well. Not logical issues concerning the coherence of the story but regarding how evidence is used and interpreted. For one thing, the Gears at times say that quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament are later interpolations and should be discounted, at other times they say that these quotations are the key to everything. This form of inconsistency appears throughout: sometimes we need to understand that the oral and scribal traditions that make up our current texts are flawed and swayed from the original, other times we need to understand that oral traditions remain absolutely intact and accurate. The major issue concerns the approach the Gears take to the Jews. Now, of course we should not adhere to a blind supercessionism and CERTAINLY should NOT subscribe to any form of Jew antagonism or anti-semitism; the Jews were not responsible for the death of Christ, at least no more than anyone else was or has been or is. But to go from saying that the accepted gospels are slanted against Jews to saying that everything the Jews ever said about Jesus is more true than the four gospels themselves is logically silly. In general the Gears take the position that the four gospels and the rest of the canonical New Testament is less true than everything else. Again kind of silly. The main argument is that Jews wouldn't say something if it weren't true. Just as Christians often did, have, and do say things about Jews that are inaccurate, stupid, and/or meant as an insult or as a means to label Judaism as false, so too did Jews do toward Christians. Everyone tried marking their own position as true and conjured up whatever evidence they could to mark the other positions as false. Here, then, we find the argument that Jesus's fellow Jews would never insult him by saying he was born of fornication unless it were true, or that later Jewish scholars wouldn't claim Jesus's father was actually a Roman soldier, as logically sloppy. Never mind the fact that the Gears sometimes say themselves that opponents' saying one thing means the opposite is true. Are the Gears right? Did Jesus die without a resurrection? Has the Church's history been one of purposeful, narrow-minded, and false suppression? Did Jesus bear tattoos on his body because he was a so-called magician? This last claim I just think is funny. Yes, a magician and healer would have borne tattoos as a symbol of who they were, but with all their talk about Jewish law, the Gears seem to miss the fact that a law-abiding Jew would not have tattoos, and other law-abiding Jews wouldn't associate with him for that reason. Besides, are we just going to accept the healing stories by saying he was a magician rather than by saying he was divine? If that's the case, Christianity is no longer a faith in Christ at all but a faith in magic. Anyway, the point is that the Gears could be right. Who knows? The problem doesn't lie in what the Gears claim to be true, necessarily, but how they get there. Even other scholars who agree that Jesus died and was buried never to rise again and that Constantine ruined Christianity for all time would not recommend this book to anyone for the same reasons I've pointed out. And I'm not even a professional scholar. My last word on this book: it's a good novel, and nothing else. It's a worse novel, however, because the Gears clearly try to make it into more than a novel.
The historicity of Jesus Christ is one of the most controversial and interesting subjects of Christian scholarship. I am also particularly interested in the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. and its curation of what would eventually become the New Testament. The Betrayal offers a fictional perspective on both, drawing on accumulated evidence to present an historical interpretation of the life and death of Jesus and the shaping of Christianity three centuries later. While its presentation of Jesus and the Church in such a stark, scholarly light is thought-provoking, it's to the detriment of the story, a fatal flaw in any work of fiction.When it comes to historical fiction, it's easy for the author to claim that his or her research makes the book historically accurate. Bolstering those claims with notes, endnotes, and a bibliography exponentially increases the credibility of one's book--and I don't know about other readers, but I don't care enough to look into the research behind my fiction. Still, I do prefer accuracy, and it certainly helps in this case that the authors are archaeologists. Ultimately, it does not matter whether or not the Gears' depiction of the historical Jesus is accurate (after all, we'll never know). Instead, what matters is that their scenario presents a realistic alternative to the contradictory Biblical testimony. At this, I believe they succeed.Of the two time periods in which The Betrayal takes place, I far prefer the later one. It concerns three monks--Barnabas, Zarathan, and Cyrus--and a washerwoman from their monastery--Kalay--who flee the monastery after the other monks are murdered. They're protecting books that the Council of Nicea has declared heretical, and Barnabas has an ulterior desire to locate a treasure known only as "the Pearl." We get a standard evasion/treasure quest plot with a wise old man (Barnabas), a soldier with a dark past (Cyrus), a whiny youngster (Zarathan), and a hauntingly beautiful yet capable woman (Kalay). I enjoyed these characters immensely, particularly Zarathan and Kalay. I wanted to kill Zarathan, and Kalay was just deliciously capable. Unfortunately, Barnabas and Cyrus were more two-dimensional, as were the villains.The earlier time period, set around the time of Jesus' crucifixion, interested me less. Maybe it was the way it was narrated, but the events seemed dry, and I never really empathized with any of the characters or their dilemmas. Still, the Gears debunk a lot of the common stories associated with the crucifixion--Judas, Barrabas, etc.--and the resurrection.In one respect, Dan Brown trumps the Gears: he can write. The Da Vinci Code may have been of questionable historical accuracy, but at least it had a compelling story. While I liked The Betrayal's characterization, its plot left much to be desired, particularly the resolution. There's very little drama, most of it suspense created as we watch the pursuers close on our protagonists. Toward the end, as our protagonists try to locate the ambigiously-identified Pearl, we get treated to an increasingly esoteric conversation as to the meaning of various Hebrew words translated into Latin--oh joy. The Name of the Rose this is not.I praise The Betrayal for portraying a historical, human Jesus while simultaneously preserving his faith. This is not an anti-Christian or anti-Christianity novel. Rather, it expresses a possibility--the aim of any good work of fiction. I'd recommend this to anyone interested in Biblical scholarship, with the caveat that it's a little dry and slightly crispy. A little steak sauce will go nicely.
Do You like book The Betrayal: The Lost Life Of Jesus: A Novel (2008)?
Although this book is not as well written or captivating as most of the others I have read by the Gears it is certainly thought provoking. As most of their other books, the chapters alternate time periods, in this one between the days immediately following the cruxifiction of Christ, and the days just afer the meeting at Nicocea that established what books would be chosen to be part of the New Testament. This book, while written as fiction, is foot-noted and well researched. Basic tenents of current Christian doctrine are challenged by the documents the authors have utilized here--and certain historical reasons, both political and religioius, are fully explored. That is not to say that everything that is presented in this book has the ring of absolute truth, either, but I would recommend this book to any who are searching to know more about the history of the Christian faith.
—Janice
I found this book quite fascinating and thoughtful. It is always difficult to chronicle that time period and any reinterpretations, even those presented as fiction will be controversial. Even if this story were true, and I certainly think it's at least as credible as most, would it make less of Christianity? I don't think so and, interestingly, neither did the characters. I gave the book only four stars because for some reason I found the pacing slow going. I definitely recommend reading this book. It provides much to think about.
—Lynn
Based on some archaeological evidence as well as research into some ancient ms., the Gears have come up with a book sub-titled "The Lost Life of Jesus". It seems to me that this is more a novel of a supposed story of an attempt (during the Constantine era) to find the burial place of Jesus and the political use of Christianity to further the power of Constantine. I found the book somewhat difficult to follow as it skipped centuries and narrators without giving good directions. Perhaps I just want a more linear book-- or at least better instruction when On is jumping from 30 CE to the fourth century as well as more direct knowledge of the person(s) speaking.
—Sharon
