Wackily uneven article from the New Yorker on the contemporary evaluation of the changing place of Judas in Christian/(religious) discourse. Some good analysis, but when the bulk of the article actually entertains Susan Gubar as a Biblical and religious scholar worth regarding, you've got problems.
Among several, here's the loftiest unsupported generalization, regarding the reception of the recently discovered 'Gospel of Judas': "What use could this bizarre document be to modern Christians? Plenty. Many American religious thinkers are more liberal than their churches. They wish that Christianity were more open—not a stone wall of doctrine. To these people, the Gospel of Judas was a gift. As with the other Gnostic gospels, its mere existence showed that there was no such thing as fixed doctrine, or that there wasn’t at the beginning."
woo woo!
http://bit.ly/fqo27