Jesus and Judas: Foes or Friends?

A Radical New Look At The Story You Thought You Knew By Sandy Smith

Judas. Whatever your sectarian belief, the name is familiar. The quintessential villain almost as famous as Jesus, the friend betrayed, whose death becomes a symbol of suffering and sacrifice known around the world. But what if the Crucifixion wasnt atonement to a God demanding payment for someone elses sin? What if Jesus planned his own crucifixion? What if Judas was innocent? Would anything change? My curiosity was aroused during a stubborn bout with insomnia, when I turned to the Bible in hopes the tiny print would be more effective than nausea-inducing sleeping pills. At hand was the Oxford Revised English Bible, purchased many years before in a moment of good intention, an impulse that accounts for many of the books on my shelves that will never be read. What motivated me was not spiritual hunger, but curiosity about the primary source for so many religious beliefs; and sleeplessness seemed a God-sent opportunity. So, at 3 AM, wrapped in my blue comforter, and curled up in the big red wing chair in my living room, I opened to the first page and started with Adam and Eve. Night after night, slowly making my way through the Old Testament, a few drowsy pages at a time until, somewhere around Ezra, the Arts and Entertainment Channel arrived to

2 support my quest. Mysteries Of The Bible,, a beautifully produced weekly television series presented archeologists, biblical text experts, along with teachers and historians, all there to explore and explain some of the knotty questions challenging the viewer, and truly a delight for the armchair pilgrim. Lazy enlightenment: lots of information, pretty pictures, and no trek to a research library. But as I began moving through the New Testament, my contentment was upended by an expert casually declaring, the average time it took for a man to die on a cross was a minimum of 3 days. My brain insisted there was something wrong about that. The New Testament story was clear. A miracle worker appears suddenly and spends a year (or possibly three) preaching and healing until he runs afoul of both Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem. After his trial and crucifixion, his followers spread across their world to teach his gospel. What wasnt clearto me at leastwas the timing. Rechecking the four Gospels, Mark was very specific: Jesus was on the cross from 9 AM to 3 PM, 6 hours exactly. Matthew and Luke place the crucifixion in the morning and both end it at 3 PM. The Gospel of John had more extensive dialogue than the others, yet left the entire time frame vague. Just to be sure, I picked a ministers name from the Yellow Pages and the voice on the other end of the phone was a welcoming baritone. How can I help you? he asked cordially. Could you please tell me how long Jesus was on the Cross?

3 His voice sounded puzzled, but he was too polite to pry. 6 hours, he said. Not the average minimum. Eventually a Discovery Channel special would prove someone could die on a cross from shock in 6 hours, which certainly backed up the Bibles version. Butif the average minimum was 3 days or 72 hoursthen Jesus death in 6 hours meant he suffered 88% less than the average person. The problem I had came from a brain function class at UCLA. Research done over the last several decades tells us human beings are hard-wired for reciprocity. Were born neurologically prepared to put a value on things and expect to be paid that value, or were not happy. (It may be why human beings began making sacrifices to their deities to begin with, out of an intuitive sense that getting something meant giving something.) Its the reason a win-win strategy works best in negotiations. And our fondness for reciprocity is not isolated like perfect pitch, reserved only for a few. The desire for an exchange thats fair runs through every ones psyche. What we think is usually a product of our culture but the way we think is ruled by the structure of our brain and our brains come straight from the manufacturer.

If were all wired for reciprocity, doesnt that suggest that God has standards? Would God be willing to take 12% of the average minimum of pain and suffering as payment for the supposed ocean of sin drowning the human race? Nothing is said about Jesus getting a special deal, no reference made to a red tag sale on moral turpitude. Almost no one notices except for Pontius Pilates surprise that Jesus died so quickly. (Mark 15:44.) Another possibility existed: his death alone was atonement for sin and giving up

4 his life was the sacrificial offering, with the issue of pain secondary. But Jesus spoke of life beyond death and dying was a release to that life, not a sacrifice: no matter how painful the vehicle, he believed his death was taking him home. Plus his links to a physical life didnt seem that strong. According to the first three Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels,) hed severed his connections to his biological family and was traveling with men hed known a relatively short time. If giving up his physical life was the gift Jesus was bringing to God, it suggests that walking with his friends along the dusty back roads of Judea for the next thirty years was more meaningful to him than being reunited with his Creator, which seems unlikely. Theres definitely no mention of sexual behaviors or inclinations that might suggest an embraced life being surrendered; Jesus asks such complete control from his listeners even sexy thoughts are forbidden. If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28) Theres nothing about an obligation for men to sire families so sex for procreation isnt on the table either, at least for him. Although some contend he was married, with his pregnant wife traveling by his side, the Gospels are silent. My first impulse was to push the whole thing away. If it were significant, surely someone would have said something over the centuries. Its not like theres a dearth of books about Jesus and the Crucifixion. But the discrepancy kept nagging at me until it seemed easier to give in and do some research. After all, curiosity is the signature of a healthy brain, so God must like questions. The best way to sort it out was to start with something my teacher, Michael Howard, taught his teen-age charges as they studied to

5 become actors at the High School for The Performing Arts in New York. Always approach a text as though youre the first person to ever see it. Especially if its famous. Throw out everything youve ever heard about it and try to see it with fresh eyes. Let the story tell you what its about. So, for the sake of my journey, I tried to do exactly that. Confident however that no matter where my search led me, the heavens would not be rent asunder, and God would still be God.

Looking For Answers

I read the Gospels through several times but it was like standing in a circle of people with everybody talking at once. Theyre the only books in the New Testament that talk of Jesus life; the others are about what happened later. Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, probably around 70 C.E., closely followed by Matthew and Luke, both within the next 15 years. The Gospel According to John is the latecomer, possibly as late as 110 C.E. For a fresh perspective, I tried reading them in reverse order and quickly realized that even though someone with the same name is the hero of all the narratives, its not the same story being told in expanding segments. And the Jesus in John bears little resemblance to the Jesus introduced in Mark. A few stories (with variations) appear in all four Gospels; the famous story of Jesus driving the money-changers from the Temple. he upset the tables of the money-

6 changers and the seats of the dealers in pigeons, and said to them, Scripture says, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a bandits cave. (Matthew 21: 12-13) John claims it occurred early in a ministry that lasted for 3 years, but the others say his journey was less than a year and the story happened at the very end of Jesus life, only 2 days before hes crucified. Then I realized there was something peculiar about rage against the moneychangers. Theres a story near the beginning of his journey about Jesus healing a leper, and only John omits it. Afterwards Jesus tells the leper, show yourself to the priest, and make the offering laid down by Moses for your cleansing (Mark 1:44) (Matthew 8:4) (Luke 5:14) After finding a description of the offering in Leviticus, I began to suspect Jesus was giving his disciples a clue to his real intention, and the fact that the story disappears by the time John was written, says they didnt get it. Heres the clue: the offering has 2 choices, one for the wealthy and another for the poor. They both involve sacrificing at least one ram and a couple of birds, not to mention special oil and, among other things, blood from the animal which is placed on the right ear lobe, the right thumb and the big toe on the right foot of the petitioner. (Leviticus (14:1-32) The whole ceremony took 8 days to complete and required a priest, but the most important thing about the story is that the ram and birds had to be purchased at the Temple, a transaction that required a money-changer, and Jesus knew it. In fact, like any other Israelite, Jesus was not only familiar with money-changers but had undoubtedly often used their services. Every adult male made sacrifices at the Temple during the year and there was no chance that the scene greeting Jesus on the day

7 he overturned the tables was a surprise to him; it had been going on for generations and hed been there before. Some latter day anti-Semites choose to call them moneylenders, but thats not the case. The Israelites believed the Temple in Jerusalem was Gods resting place, and therefore the only acceptable venue for sacrificial offerings. But this was a time when different locales made their own coins, including the Temple, so before someone could make a money offering or buy a sacrificial animal, they needed to swap the coins in their pocket for the currency the Temple would accept which meant using a money-changer. And dont think about bringing your own sacrificial animal with you. Whether it was a dove or an ox, it had to be in an unblemished condition or it was unacceptable, so the arduous task was left to the experts. (Leviticus3: 6 and 22:17-25) You couldnt just grab a chicken as you left the house.

The overturning of the money-changers tables in the Temple is the only time Jesus displays physical violence. If he felt the practice was so offensive, why did he send the leper to the Temple with instructions to perform the elaborate sacrificial ceremony? Even if you were doing it on the cheap, you were going to need a money-changer, and Jesus knew it. (The author of John drops the leper, and puts the fight up front, setting up a hostile struggle between Jesus and the Temple authorities from the very beginning.) Theres another clue. Actually, there are two and they come almost at the end. One is Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. The other concerns the death of a fig tree, a story that only appears in Mark and Matthew. The fig tree is interesting because Jesus apparently kills it with anger and, according to the Los Angeles

8 Arboretum, under normal circumstance, fig trees are so hardy they can live for a thousand years. (Kenneth C. Davis in his fascinating book Dont Know Much About The Bible calls it an odd, vindictive miracle) The story is simple; Jesus (who knows his death is only days away) is walking with his disciples to Jerusalem, where he will read the riot act to the money-changers and the animal sellers. He stops to get fruit from a fig tree but the branches are bare, and Jesus loudly blames the tree. May no one ever again eat fruit from you!(Mark 11:14) And it dies. The story makes Jesus look like a raving loon and that may be why it doesnt appear in Luke and John. Its also the reason I believe it. If his enemies tell an embarrassing story about the hero, it should be taken with an entire container of salt not just a grain; however, when his friends tell the story, its probably true. It must have been very disturbing watching their beloved teacher seemingly losing his mind as he curses an innocent tree for not having fruit out of season. So disturbing they fail to see that Jesus is showing them his power is double-edged--and not always benevolent. And he picked a tree that could outlive them all to prove it. (I dont know if its possible to kill a tree with anger but if it was only a group hallucination, its a pip.) In Matthew, the tree dies on the spot; in Mark, its not until the next morning that they find the fig tree had withered from the roots up (Mark 11:20) If you take the story literally, hes just shown them, with the help of the hapless fig tree, that if hed been truly enraged at the people in the Temple, theyd be dead. The other clue that his attack on the money-changers was staged: the prediction about the destruction of the Temple. The first three Gospels say during his last days Jesus

9 predicts the destruction of the Temple, saying it will never be rebuiltnot one stone will be left upon another; they will all be thrown down. (Matthew 24:1 Mark 13:2 Luke 21:6) He also warns of calamitous times coming for Judea. Its not spiritual advice hes giving them, its the truth. In 70 C.E., a little less than 40 years from the moment of his prediction, a four year uprising against Rome known as the Great Revolt will end with the Temple in smoldering ruins, its stones indeed all thrown down, and as many as one million Jews dead. (The only remnant existing today is the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.) If Jesus knows the Temple is heading for destruction, he also knows the only place the money men and dealers in sacrificial animals can do business will soon cease to exist. If the Temple is gone, Gods resting place is gone, and the sacrificial altar is gone as well---forever. The practice will come to an end because of the demands of reality. Within a few decades after the destruction, Judaism will take a sharp turn, leaving rituals of sacrifice behind and putting acts of kindness and good works in their place as offerings to their God. What Jesus appears to have done was attack an aspect of Judaism that he knows is going to disappear in 2 generations! Why did the teacher of non-violence launch into a physical assault? Or did he? According to Matthew 21:12 and Mark 11:13, he upset the tables of the money-changers and the seats of the dealers in pigeons. For months, Jesus has been preaching to huge crowds, and prolonged usage either blows a voice out completely or makes it strong and vibrant. As he loudly accuses the people in the Temple (who believe they have a legitimate right to be there) of being bandits, he knocks over the chairs some of these guys are sitting in and pushes over their tables.

10 Imagine the confusion as the sacrificial sheep and goats rear up against their restraints and the startled birds in their cages respond with frantic wings flapping in helpless panic. And the tables of the money-changers surely had coins that went flying in the air, scattering in all directions as Jesus roars about spiritual impurity. To the onlooker, it must have seemed very intimidating and possibly the beginning of real rebellion. Its the action of a zealot, a spiritual warrior, a potential Messiah. John seems to think so, which may be why the story appears early in the narrative, setting the tone for the ultimately fatal conflict between Jesus and the Temple. Although the author claims to be the disciple Jesus loved most, something in his account made me doubt he even knew Jesus. He made a whip of cords and drove them out of the Temple. (John 2:15) Were being told the Prince of Peace brought a weapon with him-- a whip. It makes Jesus a hypocrite, and I dont think thats the case. But by the time John is written theres the pressure of an increasingly contentious breach between the followers of Jesus and Judaism; the memory of an angrier Jesus helps to justify the growing chasm of intolerance. If Jesus had been preaching for less than a year, as the Synoptic Gospels claim, he hasnt been on the scene long enough for anyone to notice that he has no army; or to fully realize his teaching was about love and forgiveness, and not throwing off the oppressive yoke of Rome. To the Temple hierarchy he was a relatively unknown but eloquent miracle-worker with a huge following, who was now in the Temple yelling about impurity like a messianic wanna-be ready to start a holy warand it must have scared the hell out of them.

11 The High Priests werent afraid of the genuine Messiah --it was the near misses that worried them. Every once in a while, a self-proclaimed messiah would turn up accompanied by belligerent followers eager for a riot, ready to spiritually purify everybody the hard way. In 4 B.C.only thirty-five years earlier--an uprising in Jerusalem against the Romans ended with 2000 Jewish rebels being crucified. The Temple authorities had genuine reasons to be concerned. John also writes of a Jesus almost boasting hes the Messiah. In Mark, Jesus consistently quashes any reference to his being the Messiah until near the end when Peter identifies him as such; and finally at his trial, when the High Priest is interrogating him, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? I am, said Jesus. The exchange is crucial; if he answers no, the Romans will have no reason to crucify him and--if crucifixion is his goal--he must answer yes. But the declaration is made early in John when Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman by a well, who says, I know the Messiah is coming. When he comes he will make everything clear to us. Jesus said to her, I am he, I who am speaking to you. (John 4:25-26) But was Jesus the Messiah prophesized in scripture? Or, more importantly, did he think he was? The biggest obstacle to accepting Jesus as the spiritual warrior the Jews were hoping for was that their Messiah wasnt coming to save souls, but to kick Roman ass. The word itself comes from a Hebrew word meaning anointed. It became associated with kingship, according to The Oxford Companion To The Bible, because kings were anointed with oils during their investiture. In Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin says that to the Israelites, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews

12 from foreign (i.e. Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. No matter how many connections devout Christians have found over the centuries between Old Testament requirements for the Messiah and Jesus, like being born of the House of David, theres no way he would have described himself as a military leader. In fact, when hes arrested and someone draws a sword to protect him, he stops them, declaring, All who take the sword die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52) But if he wasnt the Messiah, who was he? Did John the Baptist think Jesus was the long awaited warrior from God? Were they cousins? And was Jesus human or Divine? And if he wasnt planning to atone for sin, why did he die?

Divinity and John The Baptists Cousin

Knowing more about Jesus might have given me greater understanding of his intentions, but there arent any verifiable facts except for a brief reference to his crucifixion by Josephus, a contemporary historian. Nevertheless, over the centuries people have attempted to fill in the gaps. For instance, the author of Luke, while not claiming to be an eyewitness or insider, declares, So I in my turn, as one who has investigated the whole course of these events in detail, have decided to write an orderly narrative for you, your Excellency. The excellency in question is someone named Theophilus, whose identity has never been discovered, and the equally anonymous writer finds a connection between Jesus and the Baptist not only before their meeting at the Jordan River, but even before birth.

13 According to Luke, the newly pregnant Mary, mother of Jesus, was kinswoman to Elizabeth, the mother of John, and even stayed with her for the last three months before John is born. The two women also shared knowledge that both their children had a unique spiritual destiny. But when the men meet as adults, they dont seem to know each other. Theres no hey, cuz, how goes it? They dont spend time together, let alone hail each other as long-lost kin (except in John, a gospel that insists the Baptist was not only alive but still preaching for a few years after Jesus arrival.) Instead of swapping childhood memories, or talking scripture around the campfire, the minute hes baptized Jesus withdraws to the desert where he remains, according to the first two Gospels, until after John is arrested and thrown into a dungeon. Big, bad, locust-eating John, the fire and brimstone prophet and preacher, is on the verge of being imprisoned and eventually beheaded when Jesus arrives to be baptized. John had been warning the throngs flocking to hear him that Judgment Day was imminent, with space in Hell for just about everybodybut dangling the promise of deliverance from perpetual punishment through baptism. His problems dont stem from the fervor of his sermonsits the identity of the target, the tetrarch Herod Antipas, ruler of Judea. John was accusing the King of spiritual impurity--and in antiquity, that was not a parking ticket. The King was seen as an actual physical conduit between the people and God, and John was predicting the sins of Herod Antipas would stop the flow of blessings to the Children of Israel. The charge had to do with Herod Antipas' marriage, and John's claim that it was adulterous.

14 In fairness, the marriage was a bit strange. Herod Antipas had married Herodias, who was previously been married to his brother (the adulterous part) and she was also his niece (families were very close in those days). The more John complained, the angrier Herod Antipas and Herodias got, because John insisted the only solution was divorce and if they refused, then the King should go. The Baptist was not open to compromise. Matthew says when Jesus is at the waters edge, John expresses reluctance, Do you come to me? he said. It is I who need to be baptized by you. It suggests a possible relationship between them, but then again perhaps its only John recognizing in Jesus a deeply gifted holy man. Were also told that later he has doubts. John, who was in prison, heard what Christ was doing, and sent his own disciples to put this question to him: Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect some one else? (Matthew 11:2) Instead of a simple yes, Jesus is evasive, go and report what you see and hear. (Matthew 11:4) If theyve known each other since childhood, if theyre related, wouldnt the Baptist already know? Jesus never visits John in prison (which were told is a sin, worthy of eternal punishment) or tries to defend his supposed kinsman, or even takes up his attack on Herod. If his concern was spiritual purity, why the silence? Was it because he had no real quarrel with the King? Or was it because the reward for poking this particular hornets nest was beheading in the secret darkness of prison, and not a public crucifixion in front of witnesses? And why did he need to be baptized? For what sins would God incarnate seek absolution? (A lively topic for a what-would-Jesus-do discussion.) And was divinity a

15 biological possibility? The answer to the last question is the reason theres a story about trees in Genesis: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Theyre stories told by people unfettered by facts or modern science. The Christians werent the only ones with impregnation by deity tales. Certainly the Pharaohs expected to be worshipped as gods, and its said that Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, took malicious delight in frequently reminding her husband, Phillip of Macedonia, that Zeus was her sons real father. Its understandable, given that a definitive understanding of conception werent achieved until the late 19th century. Anthropologists suggest prehistoric humans were oblivious to the connection between shtupping and babies, and probably thought women magically produced offspring, which accounts for the plethora of myths where female figures spontaneously give birth to a world, along with all of its inhabitants. The shift away from that perspective may have occurred when men domesticated livestock and for the first time watched the entire life span of animals. It didnt take long, one assumes, before they noticed magic had nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, the discovery of the need for sperm, without the limitation of fact, allowed for unwitting exaggeration about its importance. Since there was no proof to the contrary, the most popular theory for thousands of years was that semen contained tiny fully formed babies, who only needed the uterus for temporary nurturing until they were big enough and strong enough to live without it. The agricultural frame of reference became dominant: men had seed and women were either fertile or barren. The idea that women are passive vessels in the process of procreation hangs on tenaciously even today

16 in slang phrases like a woman having a bun in the oven. If we can still talk about daddy planting a seed in mommys stomach, its not hard to understand how people who believed the world was flat and had four corners, could also believe that a God, like Zeus or Yahweh, was able to place a tiny fully formed demigod in the body of a designated incubator. In truth, if there is a Primary Source, a Creator manifesting all matter out of itself, then everything that exists is a particle of that Creator and ultimately we are all children of God. But in practical terms, men and women having sex produces babies and not God throwing somebody a favor. For me, the idea that Jesus was human made his journey all the more remarkable. A Divinity is all knowing, but a human being has only faith to rely on, and reality can often make that impossible. The path he was on would hold enough wretchedness to test anyones beliefs. What kept him going? If Jesus wasnt planning to atone for the sins of mankind, what did he think his death would accomplish?

What About Eden? During the 1st century B.C.E., a much beloved rabbi named Hillel taught in Jerusalem. According to Rabbi Telushkin, Hillels greatest legacy was that he directed Judaism toward the goal of tikkun olam, the ethical bettering (literally, perfecting) of the world. In a religion that prohibits suicide an observant Jew could, without breaking a commandment, arrange his or her own death if it would materially improve the world. It had to be something that would cause people to treat each other with greater care and compassion, not a theyd be better off without me chest-beating gesture.

17 Certainly sacrificing your life for the sake of the human race qualifies, which is why some scholars believe Jesus was familiar with Hillels teachings, despite the lack of documentary evidence. But was there an ancient sin demanding atonement and sacrifice? Did Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit still haunt humans? Telushkin say no, that the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden would be seen as disobedience to God and therefore sin, but the idea that their children or even their childrens children would be tainted as well is alien to Jewish thought. And Jesus was a Jew. But even today many people reference the story as the template for our relationship with God, with the First Couples disobedience still casting its dark shadow of punishment and suffering. The problem is the premise: for one thing, Adam and Eves sin rests on a neurological impossibility. Human beings cant understand something they encounter for the first time. They need repeated exposure or some kind of linkage to make sense of a new experience. For example, leave a brand-new porcelain bidet for six months with an indigenous tribe in the hidden shadows of the wildest Amazonian jungle. Im sure theyll find many clever and creative things to do with it, but I doubt if any will involve spritzing their privates. People need a context. Although the story starts with Adam and his spouse as adults physically, experientially theyre virtual newborns. The world is fresh to them, without sorrow, and thats the obstacle with the disobedience explanation. Theyve never seen death, pain, or negative consequences of any kind. Giving them an order and expecting automatic obedience would be akin to arguing morality with a 2-year-old; theres no frame of reference.

18 Behavior only appears as negative to a child when the results are unpleasant. Why should the happy couple think theyd be punished when the idea of punishment is completely unknown to them? And God would know that. Telling them not to touch something, then walking away and leaving them with it, implies God lacks the common sense of your average 14-year-old baby-sitter. Seems doubtful. After all, if its that important, put a fence around the damn tree. Its a story told by people living a hard life, who believe theyre being punished and desperate to find a way to make it stop. All creation myths are meant to explain not just the beginning of a particular world, but an attempt to understand where we fit and how were supposed to behave. In antiquity, illness and misfortune were universally believed to be the result of having displeased God and the Jews were no exception. The Old Testament tells the story of Job, a man having a run of really bad luck whose friends insist, despite his claims of innocence, that if hed just apologize to God everything would be okay. The clue in Eden is that Abel is a shepherd and Cain is a farmer, which nicely skips over the thousands of years of hunter-gatherers that preceded farming and the domestication of animals. As the Jews watched the entire life cycle of animals for the first time, they not only discovered the importance of sperm but also noticed that, unlike their flocks, most women suffered great pain in childbirth. Eves error in Eden is their attempt to understand why. If youre hooked into a punishment and reward Deity structure, the most immediate explanation for anything bad is that somebody ticked off God. The concept of

19 evolution, and measuring the increasing size of the human brain in its bony container, was thousands of years in the future. To the Jews, women were being punished and over time an answer developed. It just happened to be wrong. The Genesis story was also attempting to justify mens control over women. (If Adam was such a wuss that he could be coaxed into screwing up just because a nicelooking naked lady asked him to, why put him in charge?) Many scholars suggest the hunter-gatherer system was inherently more egalitarian, and the switch to settlements gave rise to power struggles as women were increasing marginalized. Claiming that women were too sinful and weak to be trusted and that mens authority came directly from God was a definite trump card, especially if the guys were brawny enough to enforce their point of view. But our growing knowledge of genetics tells us the Eden story isnt true. Scientists like Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, has cautioned his fellow Evangelical Christians that its time to go back to the drawing board. And Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, has stated flatly that the conditions necessary for it to be true are just not possible. If its genetically impossible and neurologically improbable, it didnt happen. There was no sin that needed atonement, no matter how fervently people cling to the idea, and no proof that God was angry. The idea of Divine retribution is still remarkably active thousands of years later. When AIDS first appeared in the late 20th century, true believers were almost giddy at the thought of Gods mighty fist being wielded so dramatically against the abomination of homosexuality. An 11-year-old hemophiliac named Ryan White broke their happy bubble

20 of hatred when he developed the disease because of a transfusion, and eventually the God-fearing Christians in his Bible-belt community drove him and his mother from their town. Apparently reconciling God and present reality is repugnant to many people claiming deep faith, which seems strange to me. After all, again if everything comes from a Primary Source, than reality however imperfect is a presentation of that Source. Instead of accepting the challenge of trying to understand the contradictions, too many people would rather cling to the past, to a less complex God possessing fewer facets whos Allknowing, All-powerful, and looks like Charlton Heston, only taller. But All-knowing means exactly that, and God would know there was no sin to be atoned for and no need for Jesus to pick up humanitys tab. Well never know what brought him to his task, what insights gained through mediation and prayer caused Jesus to take up his cross. But whatever communication he had with God, whatever arrangement theyd made before he arrived in front of John the Baptist, it wasnt about Eden.

A Spiritual Virgin And Baptism

Popular belief holds that Johns baptism triggered a massive spiritual transformation for Jesus, its impact sending him into the wilderness for 40 days to

21 integrate his life-altering experience. It seems mostly based on an elitist assumption that the supposedly uneducated son of an illiterate laborer would be incapable of profound insight without some extraordinary catalyst. Although a formal education can enhance intelligence, it cant create it, and small hints like the absence of a wife suggest Jesus had been walking a spiritual path for some time before he stepped into the Jordan River. In Jesus time, a Jewish man would enter a marriage arranged by his father no later than around age 30 if he were living in Judea, and as young as 20 for the Jews still in Babylon. It was part of his obligation to the larger community and only a serious physical or mental defect would excuse him. That may be one reason many believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married. But a passage in Luke suggests otherwise. It tells of several women, Mary among them, traveling with Jesus and the disciples. These women provided for them out of their own resources. (Luke 8:3) If Jesus and Mary had been married, wouldnt her resources be his as well? And Luke further quotes Jesus as saying, those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world, and of resurrection from the dead, do not marry. (Luke 20:35) It reflects a man keeping himself separate from the grasp of sexual passion. Its not uncommon for mystics and miracle workers to be celibate. The same meditation and prayer that opens up a well of extraordinary spiritual awareness has a tendency to blow out any flame of sexual desire: its an occupational hazard. Jesus also declares the only grounds for divorce is a lack of chastity on the part of the wife (not a virgin), which is clearly the statement of a man whos never been married. The other hint that hes been on a spiritual journey for some time comes when his

22 mother and brothers arrive asking to see him. The Gospels say Mary was told from the beginning that her son had a special destiny, yet now that hes an adult, she seems to have forgotten. All except John say when she and her other sons arrive to see Jesus, he turns them away despite the commandment to honor thy mother. Did his refusal to marry cause a breach in the family? Why did she travel to see him if not out of concern over her first-born sons seemingly erratic behavior and his increasing talk of God? Jesus tells his disciples that he will cause a rift in families; perhaps he spoke from personal experience. Most importantly, Jesus never spoke of his baptismal experience as being transformative. It only becomes an imperative after his resurrection. Even more significantly he never baptized anyone, including his disciples. John says he did (John 3:22) and then a few verses later says, in fact, it was his disciples who were baptizing, not Jesus. (John 4:1-2) If hed had a life-altering, consciousness-expanding, spiritually dazzling baptism that opened his soul to depths of enlightenment hed never before known, wouldnt he have eagerly recommended it to others? Even if you only go to a movie that blows your mind, its something you want to share. Surely such a direct experience of God would be something too precious to keep to yourself, yet Jesus doesnt mention it. Most of the time, the subject of his baptism arises peripherally only when someone challenges Jesus as to his true identity. Instead of openly accepting the title of Messiah, he brings up John and thereby claims it by inference. And that may be the real reason he had himself baptized. John, a highly respected prophet, has repeatedly told everyone that he was there to prepare the way for the anointed one. Without his seal of

23 approval, a messianic candidate would be less credible. If Jesus plans to present himself as the long-awaited warrior from God, being baptized by John goes a long way toward establishing that identity. The linkage to messianic prophecy can be made without the need for an actual rebellion. By coming first to the Baptist he creates an illusion, a foundation for other peoples impression of him. If his goal is to die on a cross, he doesnt have to be the Messiah to accomplish it; all that he needs is for people to believe he thinks hes the Anointed One. Certainly his miraculous abilities persuade the crowds that flock to hear him. The existence of miracles is an often hotly debated questions; but Christianity isnt the only belief system that mentions holy men and women with unique talents. And although only a handful of the thousands of claims of miracles at Lourdes have survived the rigorous follow-ups and investigations, those remaining seem solid. Even doctors will tell of rare cases that seem to spontaneously recover. The truth may be that life is more complex than we realize and, in time, science will discover the mechanical underpinnings for what we now call miraculous. Jesus made a point of telling his followers that people had the ability to do these things, that it wasnt just Gods province. But those who accept the possibility of the incredible generally agree that the level of consciousness required for such impressive results is usually gained only after many years of meditation and study. Theres no chance he was a spiritual virgin before that fateful meeting with John. It looked as though Jesus had a plan from the outset.

24

To Perfect The World

If we accept the premise that Jesus was sent by God, issues of divinity aside, then perhaps nothing that happened to him came about by chance, including his death. But if his appearance before John was to claim the title of Messiah, even though fulfilling the prophecy was not his purpose, then the next question was; what did he know, and when did he know it? Was his path only revealed to him in bits and pieces, through visions and dreams, on a need to know basis, or was he aware of the end of his journey even before it began? The Synoptic Gospels may have an answer, in a parable about a bridegroom. Jesus is asked why his disciples arent fasting like some other people and he replies, Can you expect the bridegrooms friends to fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as he is with them, there can be no fasting. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; that will be the time for them to fast. (Mark 2:1920) (Luke 5:34-35) Matthew changes it to, can you expect the bridegrooms friends to be sad (Matthew 9:15) Jesus has told his friends how long hell be with them; its in code, but its in Torah and observed even today by the Israeli Army. When a man is newly married, he is not to be liable for military service or any other public duty. He must remain at home, exempt from service for one year and be happy with the wife he has taken. (Deuteronomy 24: 5) Although it might be tempting to use that as proof for the Mary Magdalene marriage, Jesus talks of friends mourning the loss of the bridegroom, not a

25 wife in tears. What struck me was the time frame: only one year, not three. Hes not there for the long haul; hes the bridegroom, not a husband, and he knew it early on. But how does tikkun olam figure into this; if hes not erasing sin in one grand gesture, why would he think his death could perfect the world? After all, he died without issuing a mission statement from the cross. Or did he? A man of power and impressive connections is arrested, beaten and finally executed in a grotesque public display, yet throughout his ordeal he threatens no one with harm or punishment. Despite some gospel warnings that condemnation and eternal fires await those who deny him as God, when the final scene is played out, Jesus levels none of those predictions at his persecutors. His death becomes an object lesson, an unforgettable demonstration of an unconditionally loving God who forgives everyone. But the Jews didnt need a lesson in forgiveness; it was already been part of their theology. Their most sacred of holidays, Yom Kippur and Rosh ha-Shana, are about seeking Gods forgiveness, a task that included giving to or receiving forgiveness from the people youd dealt with during the preceding year. Even debts had to be forgiven after 7 years. In Jewish tradition God holds forgiveness in such high regard that, barring some horrendous and irreversible crime, withholding forgiveness from a sincerely contrite petitioner was considered a sin. The Jews had the forgiveness thing pretty much covered, so there was no need for Jesus to die just to teach them a lesson. So who was the target audience? Tikkun olam still held the key. If his purpose was to perfect the world, there was an obvious reason the message wasnt meant for the Jews and it had to do with the reality of history. The disintegration of the Israelite

26 kingdom begins a few decades after Jesus death, with the ultimate result being the loss of a Jewish identity as a nation. They remain stateless until the latter half of the 20th century, which presents an inherent limitation to their effect on wide-ranging social change. As individuals, their contributions are considerable and significant over the next 2000 years, but collectively Jews werent seen as winners until the War of 1967, and winners dictate history. During Jesus time, if you asked the average man in the street who owned everything, the answer would be unhesitating: Rome. Eventually the Empire would provide a broad civic and political foundation stable enough to give root to these new ideas, not to mention instant conversion. In 315 C.E., a man named Constantine, fighting for control of the Roman Empire, will have a battlefield epiphany, embrace Christ, and take the citizens of Rome with him; because when the Emperor kneels, its not safe to insist on standing. Was it possible Jesus meant his final lesson of forgiveness, embodied in his death, for the Romans and not the Jews? Once again, the answer lay in the Gospels, in a parable that had always seemed like gibberish to me and now suddenly made sense; a parable, albeit with minor variations, that all three synoptic gospels place directly after Jesus talks about the bridegroom and his friends not fasting. No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on to an old garment: if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and leaves a bigger hole. No one puts new wine into old wineskins: if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and then wine and skins are both lost. New wine goes into fresh skins. (Mark 2:21-22) (Matthew 9:16-17) The

27 point seems to be that both new and old wine, and their respective vessels, should be preserved because, as Jesus says, And no one after drinking old wine wants new: for he says, the old wine is good. (Luke 5:36-39) In other words, the Jews have no need for these new ideas. This wine was intended for someone else. The possibility his sacrifice was meant to benefit Rome started to bring other elements of his story into focus, like the reason Jesus refused to see his mother and his brothers and instead sent them away. It was his last chance to honor his mother and his father.

Jesus And His Mother Although I knew the Gospel of John is the most widely quoted and, presumably the most popular, no matter how many times I reread it, I couldnt overcome my initial aversion to it. Not just the question of having his mother at the foot of his Cross, but starting with the first miracle, the famous turning of water to wine. It struck me as bogus and it was downhill from there. Were told Jesus and his mother go to a wedding at Cana-in Galilee; the wine gives out and his mother says, They have no wine left. He answered, That is no concern of mine. My hour has not yet come. (John2:4) Huh? His mother ignores his depressing and callous answer and tells the servants to obey his instructions, which involve filling six twenty to thirty gallon stone jugs to the brim with water, which he promptly turns into wine.

28 But wine was a staple for most people in antiquity and, in agrarian societies like Judea, even small farms had their own wine press. It was consumed at the two main meals to the tune of over a quart per adult per day. This was a wedding, not a BYOB party, and it would have been a big deal, planned well in advance. Theres no mention of hordes of wedding-crashers so this was not an unavoidable calamity. How do you come up 120 to 180 gallons short? Do you ignore the several hundred guests who will go thirsty if you do? It made no sense to me. Theres no healing involved. Its only purpose seems to be to spare his mothers friends from public humiliation for being massive screw-ups, which appears out of character compared to all the other miracles. Hes not feeding bread and morsels of fish to the hungry masses; hes just making sure everybody has enough booze to get buzzed at a party. Theres also Johns version of raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus, who weve been told can heal from a distance, hears his friend is very ill. Rather than aiding him immediately, instead he deliberately waits until Lazarus has been dead four days before Jesus arrives to bring him back to life. He explains to his disciples, I am glad for your sake that I was not there; for it will lead you to believe. But the Gospel of John opens with John the Baptist testifying he immediately recognized Jesus as the Messiah, as does almost everybody else virtually the moment they see him. If they already know him to be the Anointed One, why does Jesus cause unnecessary pain to Lazarus two sisters and their friends just so he can prove something to his inner circle? Thats not spiritual, thats mean.

29 To a Jew, meanness would have been unacceptable. The reason Israelites never crucified was because they considered it torture and therefore a sin. But the Romans and the Jews had very different sensibilities, and the shift in tone in the gospels may reflect that. A good example of the Roman perspective is the origin of our modern word decimate. A legion had six thousand men and if a group failed to perform to expectation, the corrective measure would be to select 1 out of every 10 men by lot, strip them of their armor and then their colleagues were expected to beat them to death. As for crucifixion, Rome used it as an early form of outdoor advertising. When Spartacus was defeated, he and over 6000 of his followers were not only crucified en masse, but their bodies left hanging for years as a warning to all who passed. Although the Empire was known for military brilliance, they padded their resumes with spectacles that reinforced the idea Rome lacked a sense of humor. The gladiators, the rock stars of their day, were the logo. Brutal fights to the death proving that it wasnt just the bravery of the Roman warrior that should be feared but the fact that they, as Professor Barry Strauss of Cornell University puts it, kill people for fun. The more I learned, the more the Gospel of John seemed questionable. Since there are stories of entire families being crucified, including children, it was bewildering to me that Jesus would want his mother there when he died, if for no other reason than because it put her in potential danger. Its the reason all the disciples flee when Jesus is arrested, just as he predicted. Theyre justifiably afraid of being arrested as well, and perhaps crucified with their leader, and theyre not ready. Yet the author of John insists Mary is there, along with him as the self-described favorite disciple, and Jesus rouses himself

30 from his agony long enough to give his mother over to him, which seems really strange. After all, John says the brothers are traveling with him as well. Wouldnt you think theyd object to mom being handed to somebody whos not even a relative? The problem seems to be that the other Gospels insist he sent her and his brothers away without seeing them, which would be a clear violation of the commandment to honor your mother and father, and its one of the violations that can involve something nasty like being stoned to death. Obviously the author of John cant accept that, so Mary is placed at the foot of the Cross, in defiance of logic. John resolves conflicts with the earlier gospels by ignoring them, but once you consider Jesus planned to die from the beginning, then his reason for not seeing his family becomes obvious. If his intention was to be crucified by the Romans, anyone near him was in danger. His brothers even more so because the Romans, feared for their ruthlessness, believed the quickest and most effective way to stop an insurrection was to execute everyone who appeared to be connected to it. Being closely related to a publicly tried and convicted rebel would only be truly safe if they were at a distance, far away in their home in the rural setting of Nazareth. Which would be more than enough reason for Jesus to publicly break from them, a gesture intended to make it clear to everyone that whatever he does, his brothers are not involved. Jesus protects them from certain death, and honors his father by ensuring he will still have living sons to carry on his name. But why would Jesus want his mother to watch him, battered and bloody, dying on a crossfor 6 hours? Even if Jesus hadnt planned his journey from the beginning, he certainly knew the outcome several days before the end, telling the disciples that once he

31 arrives in Jerusalem, He will be mocked and spat upon, and flogged and killed. (Mark 10:34) Crucifixion was seen by all as a gruesome way to die; wouldnt a loving son want to shield his mother, not just from the threat of being arrested, but from that kind of pain? Having her there seems cruel, and to a Jew that was a sin, which was another reason to doubt John. It seems more reasonableto me, at least--that Jesus chose to honor his mother by sending her away just as the first three Gospels attest. Itll be heart-breaking enough for her to learn of her sons death, there was no need for her to be part of it. But theres something interesting about the woman described in John. Shes watching her first-born child-- divine or not--the baby she carried inside her as a teen-age girl, undergo what historian Josephus called the most terrible of deaths and there are no signs of sorrow. No tears, no loud laments, just silence. Almost like a woman watching to make sure her son dies bravely; almost like the ideal Roman mother. And if the citizens of Rome are the intended audience, if all of their spiritual inclinations are to be addressed, a Goddess is a necessary component, which may be why the early Christians would instinctively enlarge the role of the spiritual Mother. Unconditional love is not traditionally masculine, certainly not for Rome, and since the message was primarily forgiveness and love, a female counterpart was needed. Jesus remains as a masculine figure, a spiritual hero and warrior, albeit asexual, but the elevation of Mary allowed the concept of Jesus as God to become even more compassionate by extension through an actual female icon. Its said that Spirit is like water, and just as flowing water will adapt to fill any container, regardless of size or shape, so Spirit will expand to satisfy the needs of the

32 supplicant. The figure of his Mother quickly became an emotionally powerful figure at the foot of her Sons cross, solace to powerless and traumatized women buffeted for centuries by the tumultuous conflicts raging through Europe, as well as an unceasing source of comfort for untold millions of men and women even today. It probably wasnt done consciously, and only partially a case of people reluctant to accept a Gospel story with such a glaring violation of the commandment to honor your parents. A combination of wishful thinking and need provided a baseless sense of certainty to someones memory. In a way, the business about giving her to the disciple confirms her absence. The author has Mary on stage and needs a plausible exit for her. Respectable women never traveled alone, they had to be under some mans protection, and since theres no mention of her family being there, she gets assigned to someone she doesnt seem to know. But I doubt she was there that last day in Jerusalem, even though her supposed presence becomes a source of inspiration, because I cant believe Jesus would wait until moments before his death to arrange for his mothers safety. Resolving whether or not Jesus allowed his mother to watch him die, still didnt answer why he chose Passover. If his meeting with John The Baptist was primarily political, perhaps that was also true of his timing.

The Donkey During Jesus time, the population of Jerusalem would have been around 80,000,

33 but during certain holidays like Shavuot, Sukkoth and Passover, pilgrims flooded the city and the number could be as high as 250,000. Some came from as far away as Syria, but most were from around the Mediterranean, and not all of them were Jews. Jewish philosophy and its ethical foundations were so admired many Gentiles practiced some of Judaisms rituals. Conversion was rare probably due to the Jews intransigence about circumcision as a non-negotiable entry requirement for all males. Nevertheless, they were there, Jew and Gentile alike, strolling the narrow streets of Jerusalem searching for God. But Shavuot and Succoth, although both have deep significance, are primarily harvest festivals, and Passover is a celebration of a different sort. It commemorates an uprising, a casting off of oppression: Moses leading the Children of Israel to the land of milk and honey and away from the clutches of the Pharaoh. One of the reasons for eating the flat unleavened bread matzo during Passover, according to Rabbi Telushkin, is to remember, that it is better to live in freedom and eat poor food than to remain in slavery and eat well. The Israelites definitely felt they were enslaved by Rome, not just because of 70 years of occupation and taxes but also the increasing pressure to worship Caesar as Divine. The Jews already had Yahweh, and Yahweh wasnt a sharing kind of God, so scuffling was unavoidable. If the Messiah was coming to throw the bad guys out, Passover was deemed to be the most likely time of arrival. This particular holiday the city simmered with a restless energy substantial enough to bring Pilate down to Jerusalem from his usual base in Caesarea, along with 3000 centurions, to personally keep an eye on things.

34 It would be the ideal time for the real Messiah to claim his place as King of the Jews, but what purpose did it serve Jesus? Certainly the fear surrounding a messianic rebellion had the city on edge, making everyone apt to overreact so that only the appearance of being a zealot was necessary. He could guarantee everybodys safety because he didnt have to start a genuine insurrection to get the reaction he wanted. The Sanhedrin decide to get rid of him but want to wait until Passover is over because theres less chance of a public outcry with fewer people in town. If a sacrificial death was his sole purpose, just hanging on until after the festival ended made it a certainty, but Jesus seems unwilling to wait. Perhaps because once the festival ends, the visitors would return home and a large pool of potential witnesses would be lost almost instantly. If he wants his death to be noticed, he cant let that happen. That means he has to turn up the heat, and all four Gospels agree that before that fateful Passover, something significant occurs as Jesus neared Jerusalem, and it involves a donkey. Jewish scripture has a very specific prophecy concerning the arrival of the Messiah. See, your king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9) Before Jesus entered Jerusalem, he found a donkey and mounted it, in accordance with scripture. (John 12:14) But where John makes it look like miraculous happenstance, the first three Gospels supply a back-story with a surprising difference. They were now approaching Jerusalem, and when they reached Bethpage and Bethany, close by the mount of Olives, he sent off two of his disciples. Go into the village opposite, he told them, and just as you enter, you will find tethered there a colt

35 which no none has yet ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks why you are doing this, say, The Master needs it, and will send it back here without delay. So they went off, and found the colt outside in the street, tethered beside a door. (Mark 11:1-4) Matthew reports a donkey and her foal are tethered (Matthew 21:2) and Luke goes back to the colt (Luke 19:30) but all three accounts mention two disciples being sent. And judging by the fact they need detailed instructions, its the first theyve heard about it. But its not some spontaneous spiritual happening; somebody set it up. The donkey isnt in a stall or running free, its tied up outside which common sense says is temporary. As the two disciples start to untie the animal, bystanders challenge them; but after they repeat the message from Jesus, theyre allowed to take it away. At that time, if you were caught stealing livestock, you had to repay twice the number youd stolen and if you couldnt, you were sold into slavery. Unless the phrase the Master needs it cast a hypnotic spell lulling the onlookers into tolerant acceptance of theft, somebody paid, or at least arranged for the use of the beast ahead of time, and it wasnt the two errand boys. Could Jesus have slipped away from his companions without drawing attention to himself? For that matter, at this point in his journey could he risk going anywhere without attracting a crowd? Was he compelled to send someone else? Who among the disciples could have been trusted to set up the arrangement, someone perhaps privy to Jesus real intention? Who could come and go without being noticed, and who had access to money? Scholars say Judas was the group treasurer. Could he have been the one sent ahead, not only to arrange for the donkey, but perhaps to slip into Jerusalem itself and whisper into the eager ears of strangers that the Messiah was coming this very day, thereby creating

36 the cheering crowds awaiting Jesus? But if he knows hes not the warrior sent by God, not the Messiah, why would Jesus choose to deceive the holiday masses swarming the streets of Jerusalem? Because theres a political advantage: first, its a statement of intent, designed to fray the nerves of Roman and Jewish authorities by deliberately identifying himself as a messianic contender, and second, its because the crowds will serve a surprising and necessary purpose later on. The Gospels say there were large numbers waiting to greet Jesus, but some scholars disagree. Regardless of size, these were people raised in a world of oral traditions, familiar with scriptural prophecies repeated over and over, especially as reassurance during times of suffering and oppression, and Jesus knew theyd be bursting with joyous gratitude at the sight of their long-anticipated hero warrior, coming to vanquish the Roman overlords. They must have been thrilled and hopeful, welcoming this miraculous healer and teacher so many of them had either seen personally or heard about from their friends. Imagine their overflowing hearts seeing Jesus entering Jerusalem on that special steed, doing exactly what scripture had promised the Messiah would do. It must have felt like Marilyn and Elvis rolled up into one! If the whole town didn't know about his arrival by the end of the first day, ears were ringing with it by the end of the second; gossip moving at the speed of sound. Jesus wanted the Israelites to be excited and alive with anticipation, not only to increase the apprehension of the authorities, but because his arrest would expose the truth. The Messiah the Israelites expected was coming as a conqueror. Seeing him a defeated

37 captive would be unthinkable, so when Jesus is paraded through the streets the deception is dramatically revealed. When they realize theyve been played for fools, like a bride abandoned at the altar in front of the entire congregation, many of them are furious and eager for revenge-justifiably and predictablyand below Pilates balcony. Their enraged reaction provides pressure on Pilate to agree to crucifixion; pressure deliberately set in motion by Jesus when he had someone make arrangements to hire the donkey. Jesus is pushing his own agenda, and Pilate is a necessary player. The biblical accounts tell us of a hesitant, almost timid man, unwilling to pass judgment on Jesus until forced to succumb to the angry demands of the Jewish mob. But according to Harpers Bible Dictionary, Pilate governed Judea for an unusually long term, which may indicate that the Roman government was not displeased with his performance Pilate held his job by keeping Judea quiet and he wasnt shy. Professor Richard Horsley of University of Boston, Mass., describes him as a man who shot first and asked questions later. Harpers Bible Dictionary gives us a glimpse into his techniques, mentioning historian Josephus account of the protest following Pilates use of Temple funds to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. Pilate had Roman soldiers arm themselves with hidden clubs, dress as Jews, and then mingle with the crowd until the prearranged signal to start beating the protestors, some of them to death. Not to mention the attack with cavalry and heavy infantry on defenseless Samaritans in 35 C.E., which finally caused Rome to remove him from office.

38 Pilate had little interest in internal Jewish quarrels as long as no one made waves. Jesus, in order to remove any chance of being handed back to the Jews to be stoned to death on heresy charges, made sure there would be a tsunami below Pilates balcony. To ensure a grisly death by crucifixion, an execution only the representative of Rome could authorize, he rode in on that special donkey to guarantee a bitter and vindictive mob below Pilates balcony, demanding revenge and needing appeasement, But if Judas helped Jesus set the charade in motion, he was needed for something even more important. The Sanhedrin want to get rid of Jesus, but theyre going to wait. If timing is paramount, Jesus must seize the initiative and set the agenda himself. But the Sanhedrin must believe its their idea, and I think Judas was sent as bait.

The Arrest Its nearing Passover and Jerusalem, the crown jewel of Judea, is teeming with as many as a quarter of a million people celebrating this festival of liberation, and Jesus and his companions are among them. He entered Jerusalem and went into the Temple. He looked round at everything: then, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. (Mark 11:11) No big scene, no accusations of making his Fathers house a robbers cave, no sign of any indignant outrage. Jesus just checks it out and leaves. But on the way back the next day, he curses the fig tree and kills it. Thats the morning Jesus plans kick into high gear when he returns to the Temple and, without any prior accusations against the money-changers, uncharacteristically becomes strident and violent. By picking the courtyard of the Temple instead of outside in the street or market,

39 Jesus is free to unleash conspicuous scriptural wrath in a location with the least potential for a public riot. Among the many pilgrims present, according to historian Paul Johnson, "There were literally thousands of priests, attendants, temple soldiers and minions." He picked a place where he could play the wild-eyed zealot and rant to his heart's content; no one around him would be persuaded to rise up against the power structure, because they were the power structure. Because of his association with John the Baptist, everything Jesus says is heard as the war cry of an aspiring Messiah. The chief priests and the scribes are informed and they want him stopped, believing its better one man die than a whole nation go up in flames in useless rebellion because of a false messiah. A problem with delayed gratification plays a big part in what happened next. Judas offered the Sanhedrin a golden opportunity; a member of the troublemakers inner circle is not only willing to betray him but seems eager to make it easy. He tells the priests he can guarantee an arrest for Jesus without any crowds and the Sanhedrin are too greedy to wait. Instead of holding to their schedule and keeping everything secret, they grab at what seems like a lucky break, and in that moment move from their plan to Jesus time frame. Even the place where hes arrested, the Mount of Olives, appears deliberately chosen. Theres no danger of a friendly host being crucified as a co-conspirator, because its out in the open in a public place, an olive grove, not someones house. It means the disciples arent trapped inside, unable to avoid arrest; instead theyre free to run away just as Jesus predicted. But how did Judas know where Jesus would be? There's nothing along the lines of "after much searching, Judas finally..." John says Jesus and the

40 disciples had been there often, but why would Judas know he would be there that particular night? If Judas (and the soldiers with him) had gone from place-to-place trying to find Jesus, they might have collected curious on-lookers, with divergent loyalties and a greater potential for conflict. But Judas comes directly to him, which looks like it was agreed on before they parted. Jesus speaks of an appointed time and waits until Judas shows up right on cue along with a crowd sharing one agenda, to arrest him. The time and place suited the high priest's plan to avoid a riot, but it also served Jesus' desire to have no one harmed in the teaching of this last lesson. Finding him quickly meant no chance of uncontrollable hotheads starting a fight. Its neat, its clean, and only Jesus will get hurt.

The Trial

As he stands in the darkness in the olive grove at Gethsemane, awaiting his fate, the first two gospels recount Jesus telling the three disciples standing with him that, My heart is ready to break with grief. (Mark 14:34) (Matthew 26:38) Other translations speak of his soul being crushed with grief. By the time the story gets to Luke, the grief is gone, although the plaintive request remains, Father, if it be your will, take this cup from me. (Luke 22:42) In John, not surprisingly, the grief is absent along with Jesus last minute reluctance to claim his destiny, because by the time the last gospel was written Jesus is God, and God never doubts. But the Synoptic Gospels suggest a more complex scenario: a blameless human

41 being voluntarily surrendering himself to a horrible death despite his grievous misgivings. Whether or not God exists is not the issue, its the actions of a man whose faith in a particular kind of God --an all-forgiving Godruns so deep that hes willing to give his life to make a point. Hes about to face the culmination of his efforts: his trial and execution are all thats left, and at this moment of truth, the enormity of his task is wearing on him. However, courage is not a lack of fear, but the willingness to continue in spite of it and Jesus is unmistakably a man of both faith and courage. He stays strong and unflinching as he moves ever closer to his destiny, and when he stands before the High Priest, he doesnt waver. When hes asked if hes the Messiah, for the first time the answer is straight forward, I am, said Jesus. (Mark 14:62) The High Priest declares his statement to be blasphemy, but thats not the crime hes charged with. The Messiah would also claim to be King of the Jews and, since Judea is under Roman authority, they get to decide the monarch issue, which means Jesus gets convicted on a technicality. Although the arrest is made at night, by the next morning the city knows about it and an enraged crowd is rumbling around Pontius Pilate's residence. Two-thirds of the people in town were visitors and electricity hasnt been invented yet. This was a world without movies, T.V., no electronic entertainment in a box of any kind. They went to bed early and got up with the sun. By the time Jesus had been dragged off to Pilate, people were out; either at the Temple, or just walking around visiting shops, seeing old friends or making new ones, like any group of people at a festival. If word of Jesus' arrest the night before hadn't already spread throughout the city, dragging him publicly through the

42 streets certainly couldn't have gone unnoticed. It wasn't meant to. The authorities wanted to make a public spectacle of Jesus, this self-proclaimed Messiah. Jesus also wanted to be seen, because the success of his plan depends on the crowds response. Hed deliberately led them to believe he was there to usher in a glorious new age with them at its pinnacle and to see him now, a disheveled, bloodied prisoner, was devastating news and a savage disappointment. The Messiah was supposed to rescue them and he couldn't even free himself. Besides, this was proof: if he were really the Messiah, the Romans wouldn't have the power to treat him this way. Pilate made no secret of his disdain for the Jews and had no reason to grant the High Priest any favors by crucifying some minor country preacher. But if Pilate had any perverse impulse to deny the request, to pull rank just because he could, the threatening presence of the people below his balcony made that an unwise choice. His job was to maintain order, he didn't care about Jesus, and the crowd needed to be pacified, so why not? The last potential barrier Jesus faced has been removed: he stands before Pilate, covered with blood and facing death---and it didnt happen unexpectedly. Jesus had engineered it all to deliver a final unforgettable lesson. Ironically, the man who professed the importance of heart over ritual is creating a religion that quickly becomes heavy with ceremony. Which is perhaps the ultimate reason he chose to die in such a public fashion: in doing so he created an indelible picture that keeps his message from being obliterated by adoration. Hes bringing the gift of monotheism to Rome, a belief that up until now

43 belonged only to the Jews: but theres one huge change; Yahweh now has a face. Accustomed to huge temples and giant statues of their various gods and goddesses, the citizens of the Empire, whatever their deity of choice might be, need something concrete. The Jews had spent some bumpy centuries moving away from idol worship, thanks to Moses trip up the mountain, and were now psychologically comfortable with their single All-Powerful, non-corporeal God, but the imbibers of this new brew need something more tangible. Its definitely not his fathers Yahweh, with its 613 commandments; its Yahwehlite, with only 10. But the disciples were chosen from his fellow Jews because they have a common spiritual foundation and a shared understanding of their responsibility to God. He doesnt have to waste precious time creating a belief system for them because what they already have is more than enough. But he does pull them away from the rituals of orthodoxy, which frees them to take the faith they know with them into this new belief structure. Jesus spends time persuading his disciples of their power to perform miraculous healings. He doesnt have time to teach all the metaphysics that might persuade them of a larger reality, instead he tries to shore up their belief in their power to heal through a new ritual. This is a world of talismans and amulets: in the giving of wine and bread at the Last Supper, Jesus creates something that will allow them to feel that he is not only with them, but within them. It will give them confidence and comfort after hes gone, just as it does for countless millions of Christians today. Despite that, there was something about the Last Supper that bothered me. Why

44 doesnt somebody do something after Jesus announces hell be betrayed? In Matthew he actually identifies Judas! But it wasnt just the lack of action on the part of the disciples, but the fact that Jesus allowed it to continue. Hes seemingly okay with one of his own committing a terrible crime. Wouldnt he at least try to talk him out of it? After all, hes their Rabbi; Judas spiritual welfare was in his care. Hes the shepherd; he knows one his flock is about to go tragically astray, yet he does nothing. It would appear that hes abandoning his responsibility for Judas. If death alone was his goal, Jesus knew he didnt need any help; all he had to do was wait a few days. There would be no need to put Judas soul in jeopardy by letting this awful deed go unchecked. The only justification would be that an agreement between the two men is the reason for everything that follows.

St. Paul

To me, God is the ultimate website, and the rituals and ceremonies of any given group or person their unique password. Some are more complicated than others, with more phrases or numbers, more steps, but they all reach the same place eventually even when the paths getting there have so much variation. Whether a Primary Source or erupting physics emerging out of nothingness, whatever-it-is underwrites our Universe, and humans have tried to decipher our relationship since the beginning of history and before. And as our awareness expands, belief systems often change. Jesus came to shift the consciousness of people who, unlike the Jews, enthusiastically gathered in throngs to cheer at blood sports. Forgiveness and non-

45 violence would not be a quick sale. Plus, early Christians were playing their own version of telephone. Its a party game: the guests line up and a phrase is whispered in the ear of the first person, who whispers it to the second, and so on, until the last guest says the phrase out loud, with the inevitable mangling providing laughs. My brother has a nose becomes My mother likes goats. Still in the family, but the meaning has definitely changed. Because Jesus walked with the disciples for such a short time, theres no source for an indisputable central authority after his death, not enough verbal repetition for lessons to be firmly imbedded. Like today, there were clashes over approach, personal limits, and definitions of dogma, but because the original disciples were Jews, there was a shared philosophy that needed no conscious coordination, although hammering out details created confusion and dissent. What they needed was an intellectual pivot, something or someone that could complete the swing into this new arena. And along comes Saul of Tarsus, eventually known as St. Paul, inadvertently providing even more justification for my premise that Jesus was aiming for Rome from the very beginning. For instance, the words used to spread the Gospels weren't Aramaic or Hebrew, which were used by the Jews. Scholars have argued whether or not Jesus was tri-lingual, like many Jews of his time, but I dont think that matters. Jesus and his death were the story; what was important was that the language of the story-tellers match up to their audienceand the language they used most of the time was Greek, the most popular language in the Roman world for the next few hundred yearswhich suggests a message meant for the world that lay curled around the Mediterranean, the world outside of Judea.

46 Paul was born into a Greek-speaking Jewish colony in Tarsus sometime between 5 B.C.E. and 10 C.E. He was taught the trade of tent making by his father but by the time he was in his late 20s or early 30s, his time was increasingly spent as a vigorous opponent of the so-called followers of Jesus. On his way to arrest what he believes are errant Jewish heretics, hes overcome by a vision of Jesus who Paul knows is dead. While he was still on the road and nearing Damascus, suddenly a light from the sky flashed all around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? Tell me, Lord, he said, who you are. The voice answered I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what to do. (Acts 9:3-6) But when he tries to get up, he discovers hes blind. His traveling companions, whove seen none of this, lead him to a house in Damascus where, after three days, a follower of Jesus named Ananias comes, restores his sight and then baptizes him. Saul eventually becomes known as Paul, but hes a rigid sort and after his conversion, describes his past, How savagely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it; and how in the practice of our national religion I outstripped most of my Jewish contemporaries by my boundless devotion to the traditions of my ancestors. (Galatians 1:13-14) Apparently his new role as a Christian doesnt do much to soften his approach. If anyone preaches a gospel other than the gospel you received, let him be banned! (Galatians 1:9) Nevertheless his contributions are game changers. Mark my words: I, Paul, say to you that if you get yourself circumcised Christ will benefit you no more.

47 (Galatians 5: 2) Paul also believes Jesus wants him to proclaim him among the Gentiles. (Galatians 1:16) The very doggedness of his stubborn personality makes him hold his ground, thereby opening the gates to all comers, and in the process, creating Christianity. But Paul, the saint in charge of marketing, is a Jew, like the men selected by Jesus to be his closest companions. The idea of one God expecting ethical and compassionate behavior toward others was automatically part of their cosmology. The followers of Jesus are no longer trying to pour new wine into old skins, but the old wine is still good. Rather than a break from or repudiation of Judaism, Jesus made sure that the values he believed in would be preserved. Thanks to Paul, this new religion is ready to embark on its maiden voyage into the Roman world. But one thing is certain, though the face on the sail belongs to Jesus, the boat was built by Moses.

The Farewell Once Paul gets rid of the pesky problem of circumcision, leaving Judaism officially cut out of the arrangement, the story begins a subtle metamorphosis: characters roles are changed, not to mention added dialogue and family members. Layers accumulate over time, with such impenetrable density that modern day scholars cant agree on something as seemingly simple as the origin or exact meaning of Son of man, the phrase Jesus uses to identify himself. Is he claiming to be the Messiah, or telling everyone that hes a human being just like them? Nobody knows for sure.

48 But what changes most is the message. The gospels are the core source, but the shift begins almost immediately. Mark is more or less benign, but the threats start flying by the time we get to Matthew and Luke. The Jews are now being blamed not just for the death of Jesus, but for events hundreds or even thousands of years before. from the blood of innocent Able to the blood of Zacariahthis generation will bear the guilt of it all. (Matthew 23:35-36) (Luke 11:51) In the Gospel of John, forgiveness has faded into the background as a more militant, more Roman attitude, grows in strength. In an earlier account, Jesus tells the disciples, If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive you the wrongs that you have done. (Matthew 6:14) The folks behind John are less flexible. If you forgive anyones sins, they are forgiven; if you pronounce them unforgiven, unforgiven they remain. (John 20:23) Although skeptics may question his existence, there are too many stories about what Jesus did for all of it to be dismissed even if we cant verify it rationally. The Buddhists say miraculous powers naturally open as a pilgrim reaches Enlightenment and Jesus gifts seem to be part of his credibility, proof that God had sent him. Without them, he was just one more nice man saying wise things a very long time ago, and the story would probably have been forgotten. Unless his apostles shared a portion of his same credibility, the stories of his life might eventually fade into ephemeral myth; perhaps the greatest challenge facing him was expanding the consciousness of his disciples enough to open up some small part of his gifts in themselves.. The three synoptic gospels say he succeeded, that the disciples

49 drove out demons and cured sick people, all the while that Jesus was talking about being the Son of Man. Decades later, when John is written, Jesus is the Son of God, and healing seems less important. Unlike Jesus, who pointed to his deeds when he was challenged and said, Look at what I do, now his followers insist, Believe what we tell you. Where the earlier gospels said it was important to love your neighbor and pray for your persecutor, now the most important thing is for the disciples to love one another. The community is closing ranks even as they recruit new believers with promises of eternal life. And when the question is asked, what does God want us to do? the answer is unequivocal, This is the work God requires; to believe in the one whom he has sent. (John 6:29) Once Emperor Constantine converts, that insistence on belief quickly becomes justification for violence that will wreak havoc across Europe even into the 20th century. The amount of blood shed in the name of a man who taught forgiveness only demonstrates the difficulty encountered by Christians when they try to integrate the concept. Pious souls will offer eternal life at the point of a sword, as aggression and dominance push aside any search for the miraculous. Ego replaces faith and Jesus becomes a symbol of conquest. The seeds of that change are clear in the gospels. In Mark, Jesus tells his disciples that if they go to a town that doesnt want to hear them, they should walk away. Thats it, no punishment. In Matthew, written only a few years later, were told, it will be more bearable for that town than for Sodom and Gomorrah. (Matthew 10:15) In fact, according to Matthew, Jesus condemns five entire towns to Hades because they didnt

50 show him proper respect. Entire towns! The threats are mixed with some good stuff, but as the story expands in the last two gospels, warnings grow more ominous, and stories of healing grow sparser. By the time we get to John, if you even hear about Jesus and dont accept him as the Messiah, youll be punishedand once youre in, no take backs. The teacher is becoming hard-edged because its a better match for the psyche of the new congregation. Its nobodys fault. Theyre trapped in what psychologist call a cognitive bias. When new information is presented, most folks continue dancing with the idea they brought with them, and the specter of an angry God is still calling the tune. On top of that, the early Church is in a bind. Initially converts were promised that although they would be persecuted for their belief, Jesus would be returning in their lifetime, bringing punishment for their enemies and rewards for the faithful. There are some standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power. (Mark 9:1) But generations have passed since Jesus died, and while the persecution part turned out to be accurate---the rewards part?---not so much. Jesus is nowhere to be seen and followers are losing faith. Whats more, some of the early witnesses have tasted death, so attrition is also a problem. The first leaders of the Church genuinely believe they have a message that will save the world, but they need people for their vision to thrive. The natural, almost evolutionary response of the church fathers to this survival threat is to intensify the message. John is part recruitment speech, lavish with promises of a glorious eternal life, which was very attractive to people that, for the most part, had a short brutish existence.

51 But its also a severe warning about various punishments (unquenchable fires, etc.,) that await any poor soul who drifts from The Path. To avoid making God angry, everybodys got to join Jesus, and nobody gets to leave. Which may be the biggest reason Jesus chose to die on a cross in full view of witnesses. Hes the cornerstone for a new religion and he knows turmoil will follow. I have come to bring dissension. (Luke 12:51) Kings and cardinals will stretch and pull his message, meting out harsh punishments as they justify expanding their earthy dominions by claiming its the will of God. The only way Jesus could protect his final lesson was by presenting it in a way that had limited potential for editing. No matter how the story is altered over time, the picture at the heart of it remains unchanged: A man of great power dying a terrible death without calling for harm to his persecutors, without uttering even a single threat of punishment for them either immediately or in the afterlife. It inescapably presents a God who doesnt retaliate, thereby setting an inherent limit to how much his message can be altered. And he couldnt have done it without Judas. My only question now was how much did Judas know? The Gospel of Judas wasnt a whole lot of help. Found in papyrus tatters in the 1970s, it purports to be the real story of Judas and Jesus, but for my purposes, too much of it involved imaginative esoterica describing a realm of otherworldly beings. I dont rule out the chance of other levels of existence, but it rarely seems relevant to any present day problem. However, the Judas document was helpful because it suggested a tradition of friendship between the two men, not betrayal.

52 When John speaks of Judas, were told, he was a thief; he had charge of the common purse and used to pilfer money out of it. If that was true, why did the other disciples put up with it? Mark and Matthew declare Judas told the authorities how he would identify Jesus, the one I kiss is your man; seize him and get him safely away. (Mark 14:44) Certainly the kiss is infamous, and the phrase "a traitor's kiss" immediately brings the name Judas to mind. But why would he need to identify him with a kiss when all he had to do was point and say, Thats him!? And unless some unnamed somebody was present at the secret meeting with the priests and scribes, who later revealed the details of the arrangement to the early Christians; what we really have is supposition based on two things. The first is what they saw; Judas kissed Jesus. Second, what they later believed; that Judas betrayed Jesus. Luke says Jesus refused the kiss, and John doesn't mention it. But it may reveal the true nature of their relationship. Whether Judas was acting out of greed, or in response to Jesus request, he was still sending a man to his death, which would have been a sin. Assuming greed wasnt the motive, how did Jesus override Judass probable reluctance? The idea offered in The Gospel of Judas was that of a soul imprisoned in flesh that would be liberated through death, something embraced by the Gnostics. But tikkun olam may be the more likely answer. He needs someone to set up arrangements for the donkey, so Jesus can ride into Jerusalem in an apparent spontaneous fulfillment of scripture about the Messiah. He needs someone to trick the Sanhedrin into relinquishing their original plan and accepting his, by appearing ready to betray Jesus.

53 Only by persuading him that his death will serve to perfect the world can Jesus legitimately ask Judas for help without jeopardizing his relationship with God. Also, Jesus probably needed a friend to talk to because, even after he specifically tells the others that hes going to die, they still dont understand. He tells them he will be flogged and killed in Jerusalem, and the two brothers James and John, sons of Zebedee, make the request, Allow us to sit with you in your glory, one at your right hand and the other at your left. (Mark 10:37) The rest of the disciples see an invincible Messiah, someone who cannot die. Only Judas truly knows what lies ahead because hes been booked to play a leading role. I wondered what was in his heart as he led the soldiers to where Jesus was waiting. Like his friend, did he too wish the cup could be taken from him? Mark, the earliest of the gospels tells us, When he reached the spot, he went straight up to him and said, Rabbi, and kissed him. (Mark 14:45) According to Matthew, Judas says, Hail, Rabbi, and Jesus replied, Friend, do what you are here to do. (Matthew 26:49-50) Although the word Rabbi is usually understood as teacher, in Hebrew it means Master or Lord. Its not lightly conveyed and according to Websters Dictionary, its used in respectful address. Unless Judas was being viciously sarcastic and unbelievably cruel, his last words to Jesus are that of a student to a beloved teacher. He knows what fate has in store for Jesus, and he knows the horror of crucifixion like any other Roman citizen. Judas is inadvertently telling us Jesus is in complete charge, because he calls him Rabbi--Master. In Luke, Judas is rebuffed. Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?

54 (Luke 22:48) Just like the story of the killing of the fig tree, something that doesnt suit the evolving narrative is getting left behind. The kiss doesnt exist anymore, and any trace of a more tender relationship between the two men has disappeared. But if it was a partnership, this was the last moment on earth these two men will ever share, and Judas is saying goodbye to someone who transformed his life. The kiss wasnt a cynical gesture of betrayal; its a friend bidding an anguished farewell

One Last Question Less than a century after Jesus death, the Israelites will be without a country, but with a deep connection to a forgiving and invisible God, they quickly adapt to the final loss of the Temple and make a graceful transition from sacrificial killing to kindness. They dont need a remodeled cosmology. Thats why Im sure Jesus intended this new God of forgiveness for the Roman Empire; theyre wielding the power shaping the mores of Western culture and, for the next few hundred years at least, theyre still killing people for fun. Its a lesson they could use. Early Christians in their quest for a framework for their new faith, while still caught in the old paradigm, seek an explanation for Jesus death and look for someone to blame. And for many of the Gentiles monotheism will be a stretch, not to mention the emotional wrench of totally breaking away from deities who accepted payment in return for protection. Abandoning wrathful and vindictive gods was too great a conceptual leap. Theyve been presented with too many new ideas in too short a time which was one more reason the final lesson had to be an indestructible image: the portrait of a lasting

55 declaration of love and forgiveness, intended to be assimilated over the course of many centuries; a gesture universally misinterpreted as atonement for sin. The misunderstanding was unavoidable in a world where, for the devoutly frightened, evidence of Gods angry judgment was everywhere. But earthquakes and volcanic eruptions arent expressions of Gods wrath, only our planets growing pains; and flooding isnt a punishment for fornication but more likely a warning not to build so close to the river. Our standards for sin were set by our belief in the proof of the punishment. No matter where you lived, or what deity you prayed to, the cure for calamity was to fix things with God. Jesus presented the revolutionary idea that we had the power to cure each other; that we could forgive sin--if we really wanted to. He retained the precepts of Judaism, but stripped them of the identifying rituals like keeping kosher, and offered himself as a way to see an invisible God. The old wine was still good but this is new wine for new skins. Jesus initially told his followers to keep to the lost sheep of Israel because anything else would have weakened his claim of being the awaited Messiah. By the end the masquerade is over and Jesus releases the disciples from that restraint, finally sending them out into the land of the Gentiles. If his message were really meant for the Israelites, the instructions would have never changed. There are scholars who believe Judas acted at Jesus request, but theyre generally ignored because of something in the synoptic gospels. For the Son of Man is going his appointed way; but alas for the man by whom he is betrayed. (Luke 22:22) It would be better for that man if he had never been born. (Mark 14:21) (26:24) Sounds pretty sinister, but whats most interesting to me is what isnt there. Luke has some fairly

56 serious threats leveled at others, I have come to set fire to the earth. (Luke 12:49) Theres talk of everybody suffering the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah when Jesus returns, but nowhere is anything said about Judas being judged or punished by God. And the word alas (some translations prefer woe to the man) usually expresses sorrow, not anger. As though Jesus knows his friends life will turn tragic once hes gone. Could Jesus be expressing regret for the lonely path his friend will be facing without him? Judas will be cast out from men with whom he has intimately shared his life for at least a year, under dramatic and intense circumstance; his actions will be taken at face value by most and he will be harshly condemned by virtually all. So much so that even today his very name is an invective universally understood. In addition to all that hatred, Judas will lose his best friend, and perhaps also the spiritual certainty that came from being with Jesus every day. Imagine those gutwrenching moments of inevitable self-doubt. What if he was wrong? What if they were both wrong? What if he didn't help liberate Jesus' spirit but only led his friend to a grisly, heart breaking death? How can he face God? Judas has no one to talk with, no one to share his grief, because the only person who could truly reassure him is gone. It would be unimaginable that there werent many moments when Judas wished with all his soul he'd never been born. No one can ever know what really happened. Even first hand accounts, if they truly existed, would contain the inevitable bias. Nevertheless, I cant believe Jesus would watch passively as one of his flock ruined the rest of his life, especially when, if death was his goal, all he had to do was wait. But as I put away my reference books, with my

57 questions about the discrepancies in the accounts of the Gospels more or less satisfied, a lingering question floated free. If Judas has been hated all these many centuries for a crime he probably didnt commit, what else have we misunderstood?

58