Read created here a mash-up of the catholic novel and the thriller. He did not succeed at either to the degree that his writing talent deserved. Perhaps, as the Cold War was ending and religion became geo-politically important again, he saw an opportunity for a best seller and it just misfired.
The book is centred on a good idea - the shock that would be created if Israeli archaeologists found the physical remains of Christ under the Al-Aqsa Mosque and whether this was a real discovery or a hoax. Unfortunately you can see the end coming half way through the book.
A thriller needs suspense to be maintained right up to the last chapter (as the far better and contemporaneous 'Perestroika Christi' of John Hands manages to do). Here we can guess the baddies and the mechanism of manipulation far too soon. The thrills dissipate.
Similarly as a novel of catholic torment in the tradition of Graham Greene the book also just fails to make the grade. It is worthy enough and Read knows his Catholic theology but the characters slip quickly into cardboard cuts with unnatural reactions just to maintain the fiction.
We are set up with individuals we can believe in who then react in ways that are either totally out of character or ridiculously impulsive just to move the plot along and shoe-horn it into the thriller-driven story-line.
Sexual relations are particularly unbelievable with priests leaping into bed with women at the moment the resurrection ceases to be believed as a fact, thereby probably unintentionally confirming every prejudice about catholicism being a religion of sexual repression.
The idea that anyone changes their sexual behaviour on a shift of ideology in a matter of hours let alone that women are minded to accede to that demand for satisfaction (although priest fetishes are not unknown) as quickly is psychologically absurd, especially when it happens twice.
This is a shame because Read is a very good writer and often shows considerable sensitivity to character and motivation so that one guesses that a fine 'catholic' novel could have been released from its torment if only the thriller aspect had been abandoned.
The trouble is that thrillers sell and catholic novels do not to anything like the same degree. I think we had a little deal with the creative devil here where the devil, as usual, failed to deliver on his promises.
There is one aspect to a novel of its time (1990), neither good nor bad, that is interesting. The rather honest (rare nowadays) depiction of tensions between Zionism and Catholicism as ideologies (alongside a more cursory depiction of liberal and traditional tensions within the Church).
The book comes across as gently snide towards liberals - 'Perestroika Christi' reminded us as well of non-American resentment of American liberal catholicism - but we also see here the distrust between Jews and Catholics laid out more clearly than is usual.
Catholic distrust is often portrayed as 'antisemitism' and dismissed but there is something far deeper going on here which relates to the issue that the book tries to tease out through the macguffin of Christ's physical remains - what is narratively at stake for both sides.
To secular atheists, the whole thing is a mystery of obfuscation and not worth the candle but to hard-line Zionists and Catholics alike whether Christ resurrected or not relates to two thousand years of story-telling on which their whole structures of power and belief depend.
One of the reasons traditionalist catholics dislike liberal catholics is that the latter do not 'get' this continuity. Their indifference to the resurrection except as powerful metaphor to define faith and conduct suggests to the former that anything may be permissible in the future.
For traditionalists, the resurrection is a powerful instigator of absolute faith, the Kierkegaardian leap into the irrational that justifies the line it drew in history betwen the Old Testament of the Jews (positioned necessarily as inferior) and the new universal dispensation.
We can see that the Zionists with a right-wing bent might resent this enormously and want an entirely different view of history. Liberal Catholicism might be a useful ally in unravelling the 'mysterium tremendum' as fact in the world and equalising Jews and Christians.
In fact, more than equalising. Read is rather good at constructing a cogent right-wing Zionist position that might be unpalatable as machiavellian ethno-nationalism but is based on premises no more or less absurd than the Catholic faith.
From this perspective alone, the book is a success, albeit an unsatisfactory one creatively, in opening up this perspective and being fair to all sides even if we think we know where Read's sympathies may lie. It is not with any alliance of liberal Americans, Jews and Communists.
The latter from their different perspectives all have an interest in weakening the claims to absolute truth of a Church that once defined the terms of existence of all those that these other ideologies now represent. Their collective 'ressentiment' is perhaps justified.
If there was an opportunity to exploit something that pushed Catholicism further away from claims of absolute superiority, they would probably take it - that seems to be the implication of the book. This particular atheist existentialist reviewer wonders why they cannot all live and let live.