random bits: SF story, gospel of Judas, family visit, Pesach, Hebrew

[cellio]

Dan Simmons recently published this story on his web site. It's part SF, part commentary on current events, part dystopia, but I enjoyed reading it. (I did see half of the ending revelation coming somewhat early; I don't know if that was intentional.)

I had not heard of the lost gospel of Judas until I saw the news stories a few days ago. I haven't seen the text itself, of course (only what's quoted in the news), but it sounds like it makes an argument that I made for years with teachers in the church I grew up in: if Jesus's execution and resurrection were required for redemption to happen, then wasn't it necessary for Judas to betray Jesus and for the Romans to kill him? Why get mad at either in that case? (It makes sense to get mad at the Romans for their cruelty, but that's different.) By the same logic, those who blame the Jews for killing Jesus miss this point. I'm pretty sure this was one of those questions that generated a note home from Sunday school.

My parents stopped by for a visit today. They brought a loaf of fresh, home-made bread. I'm so glad this visit didn't happen next weekend, during Pesach. :-) (It's a small-enough loaf that we'll finish it before Wednesday.) We haven't seen them in a little while, so it was nice to visit. They report that my neice, who is in Italy for the semester, is a little homesick, but she's also taking the time to explore the country so it doesn't sound all bad. She did ask a friend who was coming to visit to bring her some peanut butter. Who knew that you can't find peanut butter in Florence?

Pesach prep is mostly under control. I've cleared out most of the chametz that I'll be selling (except what we need for the next couple days), and tomorrow the cleaning fairy comes to scrub the kitchen, and then I can bring up the other dishes and stuff. I'm really fortunate to have a large-enough kitchen (not that it's large, but it's large enough) that I can stuff all the current dishes, pans, etc into certain cabinets and then just close them up for the week. Much easier than shlepping it all to the basement.

I have a transliterated haggadah published by Artscroll that I will never use. (I don't need the transliteration and I have other Artscroll haggadot for the core content.) If any of my friends could make use of this, let me know. It won't arrive in time for this year, but you'd have it for the future (maybe even second night this year, depending on the speed of the postal service). Note that as with all transliterations published by Artscroll, it's Ashkenazi pronunciation.

For the last several months, during torah study, my rabbi has been explaining more of the grammar in the Hebrew. (Mostly basic stuff, but more than he used to.) More recently, he's been prefixing some of these comments by addressing me. This week he asked "does anyone other than Monica know...?". We haven't actually had a Hebrew lesson together, but I guess I'm making progress that's visible to him. Nifty -- though I'm a little boggled that he might consider me the most knowledgable of the people in the group, as there are at least two who (I think) know way more than I do.

Comments

[cellio]

Ah, so the court might have acted on their own if Judas hadn't helped out. I can see that.

I hadn't heard about Mary having a choice before. That does make a difference in how she's treated, yes.

Thanks for the pointer.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

One other point is that Judas didn't betray him in order to bring about salvation, which would be an act I hestitate to even speculate on the morality of. Judas betrayed Jesus for money, something that people continue to do to this day, and that continues to have the same moral quality of evil. Judas definitely did something wrong. I think what you're really arguing with is the god/force/whatever that set it up so that this was the only way for it to happen, if that's what it/he did. No?

[cellio]

I think what you're really arguing with is the god/force/whatever that set it up so that this was the only way for it to happen, if that's what it/he did. No?

Right -- if this had to happen to bring about the desired outcome, then Judas is just a puppet. If, however, there were other paths that could produce that outcome, that's different.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

if this had to happen to bring about the desired outcome, then Judas is just a puppet.

Er, that's what free will is for, as the other posters have mentioned. It doesn't actually matter if there were other paths or not.
Let's say I'm a sales clerk, and I have a desired outcome of Annoying Customer Billy going to jail for shoplifting. So, I deliberately leave various valuable-looking articles out and unattended while he's there, perhaps picking things I know that he'll find nearly irresistable, and wait. Soon, he takes the bait, grabs the golden widget, and absconds with it. I turn over the videotape to the police, and Billy gets thrown in the doghouse. Is Billy merely my puppet? Should I be the one going to jail instead of him? I wasn't forcing him to do anything, after all--most people would say that the responsibility for the offense rests on him.
Now, assume that, like whatsisname from Groundhog Day, I can live this one day over and over until I choose to leave. On each repetition of the day I tempt Billy in different ways, until I finally hit on some way that results in him shoplifting. I'm still not forcing him to do anything, it's still completely his decision to steal the widget, and yet I've now got a method which guarantees his crime, at least in a certain timeline. Is he a puppet now? I'm not entirely sure, but because there's an unforced decision of his involved, I'm leaning toward "no".

While I'm not suggesting that God does these sorts of trial runs, omniscience and timelessness means that he can pick the correct time to intervene such that every human's decisions, while still free, will combine for a certain result.

[cellio]

You're right; "puppet" wasn't really the right characterization. Judas had free will and made a bad choice; this new manuscript puts forth a view that that was actually part of a plan, but that doesn't make it so.

It would seem, though, that the greatest villifaction should be reserved for Adam and Eve, who according to this theology introduced sin into the world that then required the kind of redemption that is only paid for with Jesus's execution. No original sin, no need for redemption. Why the particular focus on those most directly responsible for Jesus's death instead of the larger picture?

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

I suspect it's partly because Adam and Eve were mostly clueless while Judas ought to have known better, and partly from emotional attachment to Jesus which causes more rage against those who hurt him more directly.