Moral Darwinism

This is a synthesis essay I wrote for my English class drawing upon some of the works we’d read up to that point in class. The prompt was to take one of a source’s claims and agree with, disagree with, or qualify it using other sources from class and our own research and information. I took Mitt Romney’s claim that religion and morality are synonymous and rebutted it.

Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” Speech: Delivered in 2007 at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas to address the question of Romney’s Faith and his own views on religious liberty and religion’s place in America.

John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” Speech: Delivered in 1630 to explain his religious beliefs and reasons for coming to America to the Puritans who came with him to settle the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

So, here it is:

Moral Darwinism

As the saying goes, “You catch more flies with honey.” But who knew that generations of mothers playfully scolding their daughters for sour behavior were really making a deeply psychological observation of morality? Studies of morality have, for a long while, pointed towards something perhaps a bit unexpected. Morality is not religion, nor is it law. Laws are not morals—they are merely a codification of them. A construction invented by humans to explain why it is wrong to commit certain acts. And religion is no different. In his 2007 speech, “Faith in America,” Mitt Romney claimed that complete separation of the church and state is impossible because state decisions are moral decisions and moral decisions, of course, require morality, which is synonymous with religion (Romney 2-3). He is incorrect. Complete separation of the Church and state is possible, and not least because religion and morality are not the same thing.

Religion is a human construct imposed upon morality as an attempt by humans to systemize something that they do not understand. Why is it wrong to do certain things? That God decreed it to be wrong is a much simpler answer than the one a psychologist might give. With religion, there is no gray area: things are simply right or wrong, done or not done and one needs no further understanding than that to be “moral.” Religion creates the idea of a mysterious higher power with all the answers so that we don’t have to worry about finding them for ourselves. “God” knows the answer, God forbids immoral behavior, no more thought is needed on our part. And so religion is ranked very low on the ladder of moral reasoning simply because it eliminates any need for moral reasoning at all; our moral reasoning is all performed for us by a conveniently unreachable God.

Morality cannot be religion, nor can religion be morality just as the Dewey Decimal System is not a library, nor books, nor information, but a set of numbers with assigned and accepted meanings. Religion only avoids the issue by simplifying something infinitely complex. Morality is not a human construct as religion is; it is a survival instinct. The most basics “laws” of morality encompass the things we take for granted: do not murder, do not steal, do not employ violence, do not commit adultery, etc. And as Romney graciously reminds us: “we share a common creed of moral convictions. … [morals] are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common” (Romney 2-3). But why, if religions are some complex and different, would these ideas have appeared in the same form across so many religions? Because they are survival instinct. Whether or not your society is Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Taoist, it will not survive if every member of the community goes around killing people. So it is better not to kill one another, for the preservation of the species.

And so out of this instinct developed the great “Do’s” and “Do nots.” The Ten Commandments existed not to prove what nice people the Jews were, but to ensure the survival of their society, to prevent it from collapsing in upon itself and vanishing. The case is the same in John Winthrop’s “A Modell of Christian Charity” in which Winthrop describes how a community must function as a single unit in order to survive and prosper through a metaphor of the body for a community. Winthrop claims that “all true Christians are of one body in Christ” and thus “all the partes of this body being thus united are made soe contiguous in a speciall relacion as they must needes partake of each others strength and infirmity, joy, and sorrowe, weale and woe. If one member suffers, all suffer with it; if one be in honour, all rejoyce with it,” (Winthrop 7). Winthrop presents his strictly religious audience with a general moral code which will appeal to their sensibilities: it is necessary that every member of the community work together for then the perfection of the “body” joined by the “ligaments” of love may be attained. He justifies this argument with a Bible quote, underlining the religious reasoning for operating as a community,holding moral responsibility to one another.

However, what Winthrop is proposing is really driven by a much deeper impulse than religion: survival. These are seven hundred people (in the whole fleet, according to Winthrop in a letter to his wife) traveling to the unknown of the New World, where they will have to build their “city on a hill” from scratch, entirely on their own, with whatever moral codes they please in the face of difficulties they can’t even imagine. What would be at the forefront of their minds? Survival. They would have heard the stories of the savage natives, the unforgiving land, the unfamiliar flora, and the abysmal failure of Roanoke colony. They knew, John Winthrop knew, instinctively that in order to survive and to prove themselves to England they would have to support one another. If each man, woman, and child had attempted to make his or her own way in the New World all alone, each and every one of Winthrop’s seven hundred would have died, and died alone. But together, they had a chance. Together they could build and farm and defend and mourn and rejoice and support one another. And it was for this reason that Winthrop called upon each and every one of them to follow his lesson about society whose “sensiblenes and Sympathy of each others Condicions will necessarily infuse into each parte a native desire and endeavour, to strengthen, defend, preserve, and comfort the other” (Winthrop 7).

From this, his last point, it looks as if Winthrop himself understands some of the complexities of morality. Whether his audience recognized as much is doubtful and so the tie to religion is understandable, even if Winthrop did completely understand that morality was not religion but a means for a community, a society, a species to avoid extinction and to thrive. The simple idea that a higher being somewhere had decreed that they, the Puritans, should work together to build a perfect body joined together by love because this was Jesus’s body and God’s work is a much easier one to grasp than the highly complex moral implications of survival. But this does not change what Winthrop’s moral code was accomplishing; it ensured the survival of the whole community by promoting working together and prohibiting acts performed for purely selfish purposes.

Three hundred and nine years after John Winthrop delivered his “A Modell of Christian Charity,” John Steinbeck published his novel, The Grapes of Wrath, and proved that in those three hundred and nine years, humans’ instincts hadn’t changed, though perhaps their understanding of psychology had. The Grapes of Wrath was an explosive book, stirring up a great deal of debate and causing many Americans to question their country and the extent to which she lived up to her ideals. In the novel, Tom Joad, having been influenced by the teachings and subsequent martyrdom of Jim Casy, decides to devote the rest of his life to fighting the unfair treatment of the poor in America and championing American ideals. In explaining this choice to his mother, Tom describes the responsibility he feels to his fellow man saying, “Well, maybe like Casy says, a fella ain’t got a soul of his own, but on’y a piece of a big one” and “a little piece of a soul [ain’t] no good ‘less it [is] with the rest, an’ [is] whole” (Steinbeck 418-419).

Through this speech (and earlier ones made by Casy himself) Steinbeck proposes the very same argument that Winthrop did: each person has a responsibility to every other person and only when all fulfill this responsibility will the community become “perfect.” The Grapes of Wrath paints a picture of a crumbling America in which people have stopped caring for one another, stopped fulfilling their responsibility to one another, and, in short, forsaken their morals, resulting in a deterioration of American society. Steinbeck proposes that the solution for the preservation of America and the American people is a moral obligation to one’s fellow man which will serve to further the whole.

Recently, scientific proof was found that morality is survival-linked. Studies by Stanford professor Robert M. Sapolsky conducted on alpha males of baboon troops demonstrate that being “nice” is really a survival instinct. Alpha males among baboon troops are known for their cruel treatment of other baboons in the troop—both male and female.

Up until recently, it was believed that when an alpha male became too old to continue to assert his rights as alpha male, he was usually killed by a younger member of the the troop or, more often, attempted to move into another troop, where he would continue his cruel and abusive habits and become alienated and eventually die alone. However, researchers tracked these deposed alpha males and found that upon entering other troops, instead of keeping up their brutish behavior, one-time alpha males were friendly and charming, becoming friends with the females of the troops. Through DNA sampling, Sapolsky found that more children were born of these “friendly” baboons than the domineering alphas, proving that good behavior preserves one’s own line as well as, more importantly, ensuring the survival of one’s entire species. Applying this to humans, the message becomes almost painfully obvious. After all, nobody wants children with a serial killer.

Sapolsky’s study is interesting because it allows the argument that morality is necessary to a community, species, or society for survival to be taken a step further to say that morality benefits the individual as well. The alpha baboons in the study benefited through their good behavior because they managed to live longer themselves and have more offspring; it was not just their species which benefited. This extension of the claim, however, is not absolute, unlike it’s former part, that morality benefits a society, which is inarguably true. On one side, there is that morality benefits the self because it allows one to be accepted by a community, safe from exclusion and a lonely death, which also increases one’s chances of finding a sexual partner and extending one’s line. On the other there is a situation of self preservation wherein the self reaches a point of desperation when faced with a choice between survival and death. In this situation, all the self cares about is staying alive; the survival of the species no longer matters, one’s number of children is forgotten, and public opinion is thrown to the winds.

It is for this reason that Freud so vehemently believed that the golden rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was completely against human nature. For certainly, no one starving in a desert, faced with death, would hesitate to steal a chicken, even if it meant violence or murder, in order to survive. But of course no one would want this done to him. Freud contended that “Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together … the power of this community is then set up as ‘right’ in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as ‘brute force’. … The essence of it lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions” (Freud 42). What Freud describes as a restriction of the “possibilities of satisfaction” by members of a community is morality. No one ever claimed that morality was always easy or satisfying, but it certainly does restrict, and it does so for the betterment of the whole society, echoing back to Winthrop’s claim that communal rights take precedence over individual ones.

Taken together, the reasoning for the moral codes expressed by both Steinbeck and Winthrop, backed up by Sapolsky’s baboon studies and Freud’s extensive work in psychology, is, without a shred of doubt, survival of the species, the community, or the society. Though morality may be codified by religion in order to make its complexities more easily understood, morality is not in any way religion and, in making the claim that the separation of church and state is impossible because the two are interchangeable, Romney is wrong.

Even without extensive proof that morality is a means for survival, Romney’s argument that religion and morality are the same falls apart with one simple question: Has he forgotten atheists? Granted, many staunchly conservative Republicans hardly recognize the existence of atheists, but this does not excuse them from addressing the unreligious in their arguments. “Faith in America” is clearly directed at a religious audience, but it makes not one mention of those who have no religion. He refers to Americans as religious people, and yes, for the most part we are, but what about those six percent who aren’t? (Gallup) Who don’t believe in a God or any higher power? Are they not American? Romney’s speech seems to imply it. But that is not the issue. Romney’s assertion that religion is morality denies atheists morality. According to him, atheists are not immoral, they are amoral. Six percent of America has no sense of morality and might very well wake up every morning and calmly contemplate murder. It is hardly necessary to say that this is grossly inaccurate. Six percent of America is atheist and perfectly moral. Some might even argue that atheists are more moral than those who are religious—why would an atheist ever support something so horrible as a crusade? They have no reason to do so.

There are hundreds of names that could be listed as counter-examples to Romney’s claim, but one well-chosen one shall suffice: Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton was a feminist and an atheist and she advocated for both in a time in which neither was acceptable—particularly in a lady. Romney makes the claim that “no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people” (Romney 2) and so what, exactly, does he think of Stanton? Feminism was based on the tenet that women deserved equal rights with men—a conviction with a thoroughly moral basis and one undeniably driven by “conscience.” So then, according to Romney’s argument, how is it that Stanton was a proponent of both? An advocate for a literally godless movement and for one founded on a deep moral basis? A moral- less champion of morals? Only because atheists posses morals and morality the same as anyone else.

Under scrutiny, Romney’s assertion that morality and religion are one and the same crumbles. Morality is the word for a set of instincts designed for the preservation of a species, a society, a community. It is not reliant on any human-imposed construct; it comes with being sentient. Religion, however, is a system which codifies these instincts and gives people an easy explanation for them. To claim that they are the same is grossly inaccurate. Nor can religion be morality because of the thousands of people who have no religion and are yet moral. Romney’s argument is full of loopholes and so, his conclusion that the separation of church and state is impossible because of the impossibility of separating morals from religion also falls. Morality is the biological acknowledgement of the precedence of the group over the individual in order for the community to survive, function, and thrive. Or as Freud put it: “The replacement of the power of the individual by the power of the community constitutes the decisive step of civilization” (Freud 42).

Against the Banning of The Grapes of Wrath

Continuing the English III roll. . .

We read The Grapes of Wrath and then debated its banning in Kern County as if were were contemporaries. I played Gretchen Knief, the head librarian of Kern County and this was my opening speech in the debate:

I am Gretchen Knief, chief librarian of Kern County, and I come before you today to ask that the ban placed on John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath last Monday be lifted.

Let me start by asking you, all of you, what drives you to ban this book? We can think of no other reason than fear. Fear that John Steinbeck speaks the truth. Fear that your children will read the truth and condemn their parents. Fear that they will be exposed to the darker side of life and become corrupt. Fear that it is more than a book, it is a revolution. And so because of your fear, you decide that you have the right to cancel the prerogative of freedom of speech awarded to every citizen of this country. You say that The Grapes of Wrath destroys the “American Dream”? Well what is it that you are doing, then?

If Steinbeck has written the truth, that truth will survive. If he is merely being sensational and lascivious, if all the ‘little words’ are really little more than fly specks on a large painting, then the book will soon go the way of all other modern novels and be forgotten. It is not fear of the book, but fear of the ideas which it contains that drives you to ban the book. And what good will that do? The ideas are not confined to the pages, they will survive whether the book is banned and burned or no.

Many of you are parents, concerned for your children’s well-being. You want to protect them from the language contained in The Grapes of Wrath, you want to protect them from its lewdness. But do you also want to protect them from its messages of hope? Its suggestion that each of us has a moral responsibility to his fellows? Its linguistic beauty? Are all these things to be thrown away simply because Tom Joad calls Casy a “damn fool”? Because he reckons a one-eyed man is “full a crap”? Because a married couple make love on the back of a truck going to California? You, as parents, have a responsibility to your children. Not to shelter them, but to help them grow, facilitate their understanding. There can be no hurt gained from a discussion with your child on any one of these subjects. The only way exposure to language or lewdness can harm a child is when it comes unguided and unexplained. So allow your children to read these things, to discover them, to ask you questions, and most important, to make their own judgements. They can only grow.

Of course, we are not arguing that every child should read The Grapes of Wrath. It is a complex novel, many-layered and intense, requiring levels of comprehension prepubescent children rarely possess. And by the time children reach the stage of young adulthood, do their parents’ fears really have any basis? They are finding these things out on their own as it is and it could only be better for them to do it with their parents’ guidance. Really, The Grapes of Wrath and similar sources are probably the best ways for your children to make their ways into the real world and shed the innocence of childhood.

The responsibility is on you to help your children understand. Banning the book will do no good, merely harm. Already the waiting list at Kern County’s central library is 600 names long and I promise you it will continue to grow as long as this ban stands. Children will read it in secluded corners, thrust it under the bedcovers as you enter their rooms.

They are not hiding the book; they are hiding the ideas.

We should all know perfectly well by now what happens when authorities decide which ideas are good, which bad. Look around the world. We live in a time swamped by “isms”: Communism, Fascism, Socialism. And what do we in America think of those “isms”? What do we label them in our heads? “Other” and “over there.” It’s nothing to do with us, those few Germans rallying around a Fascist leader. That Italian? He makes the trains run on time, what’s that to do with us? Our nation prides itself on being free of the doctrines that define these isms.  They are our antithesis. We are a republic, a free society, we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to freedom of assembly, and free speech. We are not like them, those over in Europe forbidding publication and circulation of books, locking men up for what they believe, burning the words of those with whom they don’t agree. But look at yourselves. You’re no different at all. If you were any different, we wouldn’t be here today. It doesn’t matter whether this book is fact or whether it is fiction, whether it is biased, or historically accurate, or any of it. We are entitled to read it because we are American. Because we are a society free from oppression. But ban this book and we lose that fundamental principal which makes us American. Ban this book and we are no different from the Fascists burning books in Berlin today.

And how do we expect our children—the future of our county—to understand what our world, what our nation, faces, if we do not present them with these ideas and let them see for themselves. We must trust them, trust our children to form their own opinions. We cannot shelter them forever. Some day they will have to go out into the real world and realize the truth. It is our duty to prepare them for that.

The Gospel According to Judas

What follows are the only remaining fragments of the Gospel of Judas, which tells the Christ story from the point of view from that most misunderstood of apostles, Judas. I wrote them for English class. They are presented in the format of the Oxford Annotated Bible and annotated by yours truly, with notes and references to the other four gospels included.

Page 1, followed by it’s transcript:

Chapter 7

“For I tell you that anyone who enters a house by any but the front door is a thief.^{a 2}The one who enters by the front door is the guest of the master and must respect his house. ³Without the master, all those within the house would be thieves and so they look to the master for direction. ⁴For they know that to follow another into the master’s house would be thieving and so they remain by the master’s side.”

So Jesus spoke to his disciples, but they did not understand what it was that he meant.

And Jesus explained to them: “I am the master of the house; it is through me that you may enter. ⁷Those who do not enter through me are thieves whose only intent is to destroy; ⁸they will be thrown out into the darkness, denied sanctuary. ⁹Whoever enters the house through me, will be saved ¹⁰and I will watch after him just as the master of the house watches after his guests.”

The disciples listened to Jesus and they understood what he had said. ¹²But Judas Iscariot, who did not understand, went to Jesus and said ¹³“Rabbi,^b is it not enough to believe in God?” ¹⁴And Jesus replied, “No, you must believe in me also.” ¹⁵And Judas was disturbed.

Then an argument broke out among the disciples for each believed that he was the best and worthiest. ³⁹Jesus was dismayed and spoke to them, saying, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” ⁴⁰Then he took a little child and put it among them; and taking it in his arms, he said to them, ⁴¹“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me also.”

Then Judas, who had not joined in the argument, took Jesus aside and asked him ⁴³“Teacher, how is it that you can expect your disciples to understand when you say, ‘whoever wants to be first must be last of all’ if you do not first do the same? ⁴⁴You perform signs to the people and ask them to follow you; is not this because you believe that you are first in the eyes of God?” ⁴⁵And Jesus replied, “There was a teacher who went down to Judea and began to teach the people. ⁴⁶He said many things and the people listened. Some who listened did not understand and turned away. Some who listened did not believe and turned away. And some who listened understood the teacher and lived by his message. ⁴⁷Now this teacher was a man who had been cast out of his own city because he was adulterous. ⁴⁸But in speaking to the people, he preached against adultery and called it sin. ⁴⁹And so they learnt from him and became better than he for they did not commit adultery.” ⁵⁰And then Jesus said to Judas, “I am the teacher who will make my followers better than myself.”

And Judas nodded and turned away for Jesus did not understand his own message.

Chapter 9

the sister of the sick man sent a message to Jesus saying, ³“Lazarus who loves you is ill.”^c And when Jesus heard it he did not go immediately, but lingered, saying ⁴“This illness does not lead to death; ⁵rather it is for God’s glory, so that I, the Son of Man, may be glorified through

a Other ancient authorities read murder, not thief   b Or Teacher   c Other ancient authorities read dying, not ill

NOTES:

  7.1-15: Parable of the Master’s House Unique to Judas, though the message is similar to that of Jn 10. 1-6. The parable illustrates why Jesus is necessary in order for a believer to enter Heaven and believe in God. 1-4: In order to enter the house of the master (Heaven), one must have the master’s (Jesus’s) consent. 5: The disciples are confused (just as in Jn 10.6 and Mk 4.13). 6: Jesus explains the parable to his disciples and spells out the consequences for those who try to enter the ministry of God through a route other than Jesus, while ensuring that those who believe in him will gain salvation. 12-14: Judas does not understand why belief in Jesus matters as long as one is loyal to God and asks Jesus as much. Jesus replies that he is an essential part of belief, an answer which disturbs Judas with its paradoxical egocentricity. 7.16-37: Lost or illegible. If events mirror those presented in Mark just prior to the argument among the disciples, which also appears in Judas 7.38-41, these verses presumably describe one of Jesus’s miracle healings and a prediction of Jesus’s faith. Though, there is nothing whatever to support this. 7.38-41: The Disciples’ Argument (Mk 9.33-37) The disciples fail to understand Jesus’s teachings and quibble over which of them is best, unsettling Jesus. 39-41: “Whoever… me also” Mk 9.35-37. 40: A child being the person of the lowest status in the family. 7.45-51: The Parable of the Adulterous Teacher Unique to Judas. Jesus tells Judas the parable of a wandering teacher who had been a sinner, but abandoned his old life and proceeded to teach people about sin, effectively making them better than their teacher. He tell it in order to explain to Judas why it is alright for Jesus to reprimand the disciples when he is not necessarily perfect himself. It is interesting that Jesus does not deny Judas’s allegations. 51: In telling the parable, Jesus has confirmed Judas’s suspicion that Jesus does not truly understand God’s word. Chapter 8 is missing. 9.1-37: The Resurrection of Laza-

Page 2, followed by its transcript:

it. ” ⁶And he delayed for two days before saying to the disciples “Let us go to Judea again to visit our friend Lazarus.” ⁷But the disciples said to him “Why do you go to Judea? Is not Lazarus surely dead these two days?” ⁸And Judas said to his Lord “Why is it you waited? Now Lazarus is surely dead and buried, but yesterday you might have saved him.” ⁹But Jesus said only to them, “He is in a sleep from which only I can raise him.” ¹⁰And the disciples spoke among themselves for they did not know that by sleep Jesus was referring to death. Then Jesus spoke plainly so that none would think less of his deed and not believe. ¹¹“Lazarus is dead and I am glad for you shall bear witness to his resurrection and all of you shall believe.” ¹²And he spoke not only to the disciples but also to those who followed his word so that when he went to Judea there were many that followed so as to see the glorification of Jesus.

Lazarus’s sister, who was called Martha, met Jesus when he arrived in Judea and said to him that Lazarus had been dead seven days. ¹⁴And Martha spoke to Jesus saying “Why did you not come sooner, Lord? ¹⁵Had you been here, my brother would not have died.” ¹⁶And Jesus said to her “I am the resurrection and the life.”^a And she believed. ¹⁷Then Jesus turned to the disciples and the many Jews who had come to mourn Lazarus and said ¹⁸“Lazarus is dead and Lazarus will rise again. I am the resurrection and the life. ¹⁹Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” ²⁰And Jesus began to weep because he had loved Lazarus. ²¹And the people talked among themselves asking “Could not this man who healed the blind spare this man whom he loved from death? ²²Why did he wait?”

Then Mary came and led them all to the tomb (which was a cave) where Lazarus lay. ²⁴There was a great stone at the entrance and Jesus said “Let the stone be moved.” But Mary said to him ²⁵“Lord, already my brother has lain here four and more days, he has begun to fester.” ²⁶But Jesus asked her if she believed in him and she answered “Yes.” ²⁷“Then you will see our Glory.” ²⁸And the stone was rolled away. Then Jesus looked upwards towards the heavens and said ²⁹“Father, for the sake of these people here I thank you for hearing my request so that they might believe in me and see our Glory!” ³⁰Having said this, in a loud voice Jesus cried, “Lazarus, come out!” ³¹And Lazarus stepped out of the cave before Jesus and the people marveled for they had smelled the stench of death at the cave’s opening.

Those who had not before, now believed in him and gave their glory to Jesus and not directly to the Lord. ³³But others who were less loved went to the Pharisees and told what they had seen. ³⁴And the Pharisees were afraid for they saw that this man was performing many signs and that the people believed him. ³⁵And they asked “What will we do? ³⁶If we do not stop him all the people will believe in him and we will be displaced.” ³⁷So they began to plan his death.

Chapter 10

Jesus could no longer walk freely over the land for the High Priests were planning against him ²and so he went to Ephraim and hid^a there with his disciples until the Passover.

 

a  Other ancient authorities read remained, not hid

NOTES:

rus (Jn. 11.1-57) Crowning sign which demonstrates Jesus’s power with the intention of self-glorification. 1-2: Missing and partially illegible. Presumably an introduction to Lazarus’s illness. 4: Jn 11.3 Note addition of “I” in Judas’s account where there was only “the Son of Man” in John’s. 6: “Let us… again” Jn 11.7 8: Judas is singled out as having questioned Jesus’s decision both to delay and eventually to go. Note accusatory tone of “you might have.” 9: (Ref. Jn 11.11) Sleep referenced. In Judas, Jesus specifies that only he can waken Lazarus. 10-11: (Ref. Jn 11.14-15) Jesus clarifies himself to ensure that the scale of his sign is understood. Sign will inspire faith. 12: Public event; much more so than John. 13: Establishes finality of Lazarus’s death. (Ref. Jn 11.17 “in his tomb four days.”) 14-15: Accusatory. 16: “I am… life” Jn 11.25 18-19: “I am… never die” Jn 11.43 Emphasis on Jesus, not on God, as in John. The passages are identical; presumably John lifted it from Judas while writing his later account as it fit the context of belief in God through Jesus. 20-22: (Ref. Jn 11.35-37) 25: (Ref. Jn 11.39) Re-emphasizes the fact that Lazarus is very dead to set up sign. 27: (Ref. Jn 11.40) In Judas, the statement is more certain than in John. “Will” verses “would” see “our glory.” Jesus’s addition of himself is remarkable and emphasizes the trend that Judas is beginning to note. 29: “Our Glory” Jesus places himself on a level with God. Very notably absent from John’s account. 31-32: (see v. 5) Sign has desired effect and the people believe strongly in Jesus, not in God, but in Jesus. 10.5-14: The Anointing at Bethany (Mt 26.6-13; Mk 14.3-9; Lk 7.36-50; Jn 12.1-8) As a prophet

Page 3, followed by its transcript:

³At Passover the High Priests and Pharisees said “We cannot arrest this man during festival for there will be a riot among the people” and ⁴so it was safe for Jesus to return to Bethany to the House of Simon the Leper. ⁵As he sat at the table in the house of Simon, a woman entered the room bearing an alabaster jar filled with costly ointment of nard ⁶and, breaking the jar, she poured the ointment over Jesus’s head. ⁷Those who stood by became angry at the waste and asked one another “Why did this woman waste the costly ointment in such a way?” ⁸One of these, Judas Iscariot, stepped forward saying “This ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii. Why has this woman wasted it?” ⁹(He said this because he cared about the poor and wished to give to them the money). ¹⁰And he scolded the woman for the waste. ¹¹But Jesus said, “Do not be harsh to her, Judas. Leave her be; she has done me a service. ¹²For you will always have the poor with you, and you can show them kindness whenever you wish; but you will not always have me. ¹³She has anointed my body in preparation for its burial.” ¹⁴And Judas said nothing more and turned his back on Jesus for he was greatly disturbed by what he had seen.

He went to the chief of priests and said, “I have come to put the King of the Jews into your hands for he has betrayed his message and his God” and the chief of priests was greatly pleased. ¹⁶He offered Judas thirty pieces of silver, but Judas refused them for he would not receive payment for services to his Lord.

On the day that the Passover Lamb is sacrificed, the disciples said to Jesus, “Where do you want us to go to make preparations for you to eat the Passover supper?” ¹⁸And Jesus answered, “Go into the town and there you will meet a certain man. ¹⁹Say to him ‘Our teacher has sent us to say to you that his time is near; he will take Passover in your house.” ²¹So the disciples went and did as Jesus had told them.

When night came, Jesus went secretly into the city and took his place at table with his disciples and they began to eat. ²³As they were eating, Jesus spoke to his disciples saying, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” ²⁴Immediately, his disciples became distressed and one after the other asked “Surely, not I?” ²⁵And Jesus replied “It is one of my twelve who shall betray me, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me. ²⁶For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”

And Judas spoke: “Surely, not I, Rabbi?” ²⁸He said this because he knew that he was not the betrayer. And Jesus replied, ²⁹“You have said rightly.” For Judas was not the betrayer.

Then Jesus took up a loaf of bread from the table and blessed it. ³¹Then, breaking it, he gave it to his disciples, and said: “Take, eat; this is the bread of my body.” ³²Then he raised a cup and, giving thanks, passed it to them and they all drank. He said to them ³³“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for you.”

 

Jesus and his disciples went out to the Kid-ron valley where there was a garden. ⁵⁰This place was known to Judas, for he had been there before with Jesus. So Judas led a crowd from the chief priests there and they were carrying clubs and swords and stones. ⁵¹Judas had told the chief priest a sign that he would perform, saying

NOTES:

poured oil on the head of David (signifying his messianic status), so a woman… pours ointment on Jesus’ head in order to prepare him for burial. 3: (Ref. Mk 14.2) 4: House of Simon the Leper, ref. Mk; Jn. 5: (Ref. Mk 14.3) Nard was a plant imported from the Himalayas whose oil was used as a perfume, sedative, and medicine. 8: “this ointment… denarii” Mk 14.5 9: Compare with Jn 12.6 in which John claims the exact opposite: that Judas “said this not because he cared about the poor; but because he was a thief.” 12-13: (ref. Mt 26.11; Mk14.7) “For you… burial” Mk 14.7. 14: Judas views this as the final straw: Jesus clearly cares for himself above all else, specifically stating that he matters more than the poor. 15-16: Judas Reveals Jesus as a Betrayer of his God In Judas it is not Judas who is the betrayer, but Jesus. Judas sees Jesus as having betrayed God and the message he was sent to deliver and sees it as his responsibility to hand Jesus over in order to prevent him from distracting from God and tainting the message. 17-33: Passover Supper (Mt 26.17-35; Mk 14.12-25; Lk 22.7-23) 17-21: (ref. Mk 14.12-16) 23: “truly I… with me” Mk 14.18 25-26: “It is… betrayed!” Mk 14.20-21 27: “Surely… Rabbi?” Mt 26.25 29: Translated in Matthew as “You have said so.” The use of the word “right” does not leave it a statement up for debate: Judas is simply “right.” It is clear to Judas who the real betrayer is. 30-33: The Eucharist Mt 26.26-28; Mk 14.22-24; Lk 22.19-20. 34-48: A section is missing which presumably describes Jesus’s prayers prior to his arrest. 49-56: Jesus’s Arrest Judas completes his task in the service of his

Page 4, followed by its transcript:

⁵²“The man whom I kiss calls himself the King of the Jews; arrest him for he has betrayed his message and his God.” ⁵³So when he arrived, Judas went up to Jesus and kissed him on the cheek according to the sign for he knew that he must do this thing, though it saddened him. ⁵⁴And immediately the crowd laid hands on Jesus who said, ⁵⁵“Do you come to arrest me with swords and clubs as though I were a common bandit? All of the days I was in the temple with you, teaching, and you did not arrest me. ⁵⁶But let the scriptures be fulfilled.”

NOTES:

God and the Word and effectively eliminates the betrayer, Jesus.  55-56: “Do you… fulfilled” Mk 14 48-49 though in Judas the word “common” is added showing Jesus’s disgust with being associated with such rabble and further proving Judas’s point.