ForumGarden

A while ago, as I was reading Borges, I came across a little story called "Three Versions of Judas," which I believe is part of Ficciones. The story demonstrates that Judas was the true Messiah (this is an oversimplification, and I think you should read the story to get the entire argument, but I'm summarizing here because my post will go in a different direction). While the argument is interesting, it should not be taken as an an exercise in exegesis, since I think the story is more concerned with the relationship between reading and producing texts, with reader response, and with the reader's unavoidable rewriting of the text.

But it did make me think. Now, if we think not so much historically, but symbolically (Ted, I fully agree with the midrash point you've made in several posts), I think the traditional position of Judas as betrayer should be reconsidered. If God had a plan, which could only be fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ, then it logically results that someone had to be the accessory to this plan (unless Christ decided to turn himself in). The choice the Apostles were faced with was to either protect Christ (and therefore hinder the plan) or to betray him (and therefore advance the plan). From a purely human point of view, protecting him sounds like a better choice, since we consider it both good and right to protect someone we love and whom we consider important. However, if we consider that Christ also had a very specific function in a divine plan, I think that protecting him at the expense of his fulfillment of the plan is selfish (i.e. not wanting to hurt someone because his hurt would attract our own suffering, even though protecting him would hurt him more in the long run, since he would be unable to fulfill his main function). So couldn't that mean that, in fact, Judas loved Christ more than the other Apostles because he was able to assist Christ in the fulfillment of his plan, even if it meant that

1. Judas would hurt someone he loved

2. Judas would be forever known as a betrayer and consequently denigrated and hated through generations

3. Judas would risk eternal punishment both for his betrayal and for his suicide?

Wouldn't that mean that Judas' sacrifice was second only to Christ's?

Things to consider:

- Judas' simultaneous breaking of the bread - wouldn't that imply that he was chosen as the accessory to the plan? Could he have passed the cup if Christ himself couldn't?

- Christ's prayer to have the cup taken away from him - could he have fulfilled the plan without the accessory?

- Judas' kiss - since Christ was well-known to many, was the kiss truly necessary? Would the Roman administration have been so oblivious of someone who preached publicly? Or could we interpret his kiss as a seal of allegiance, rather than one of betrayal?

- Judas' discarding of the silver - could we gather that the silver was a pretext to make Judas more believable as a betrayer?

I would be interested in your thoughts. I imagine that this could be a loose exercise in exegesis.

Felinessa:-6

Some good questions. Could I ask you to reafirm the author you were reading. Was is Borges or Borg? Just curious.

Many theologians are beginning to think that Judas was not an hisorical character but midrash or if you will a parable about Jesus and his crucifixion. This does not deny the crucifixion. That is a well accepted fact among the scholars.

Lunch time. Must go to the common room as we are finishing up from our community bbq last evening. Lots of food. Jesus would have loved it. We had the wine as well. Jesus would have loved that as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Jorge Luis Borges. I read it as part of the collected Ficciones, but I think it may also be part of the smaller Labirynths.

Wait, common room? Is that at work? Or what kind of living arrangement do you have? Sorry, cat curiosity :wah:

Felinessa:-6

We live in a relatively small condo of 24 units on Gabriola Island. Because it is such a small complex everyone knows everyone else and we often have pancake breakfasts, bbqs, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter meals, in the common room. And any other excuse for a party. We have a group that plays canasta every Wed after we have soup and desert in the common room. During the winters we have a discussion group that meets once a week and movie nights on Saturdays, I say winter but really from Sept. to June.

Anyone who lives on this island and says they are bored are either blind, stupid or lazy. In fact we even have a few of us who are either blind or seriously visually impaired but they still join in. We work it out.

We also check on each other if we haven't seen someone for a day or two and know that they are not away.

There are also several very talented artists and writers on the island. One can take art lessons, tole painting, play badminton, play tennis, take fencing, do gymnastics or fitness classes, go to church, play baseball or soccer, do Tai Chi or yoga or go swimming in the ocean. I know of some who do the swim thing even in the winter. I've missed a bunch but you get the idea.

Gabriolans no how to party and even how to find an excuse to do so.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Felinessa:-6

The important question about Judas is what did it mean for the writer and secondly what does it mean for us today? The historicity is unimportant. It is the meaning that is. Truth can be presented in many form. Consider the great truths about society in "Oliver Twist". While he was a fiction there have been many Olivers in history.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Canasta :-6 Rummy marbles or cards? We used to play it with marbles when we were kids and man, the fights we had over the rules that kept changing :wah:

I suppose we would have a historical Judas and a symbolical one, just as we have a historical Christ and a Christ as the Risen God. I think I'm more interested in Judas as a player in a very intricate game. Thus, maybe I'm committing heresy, but I'm not sure if the evangelists necessarily set out to understand and interpret Judas, or if they felt they acted as chroniclers (which is naive, considering they were working with other texts and oral history, legend, etc).

I think I just twisted myself into a bow :p

Felinessa:-6

I am sure that there have been many Judas's throughout time. There ae others in the Bible named Judas but only one Judas Iscariot. I think one can see him either way. There is no heresy in taking it either way.

Shalom

Ted:-6