Oh how funny. Spotted in the paper today, amid the religious stories pandering to easter, or perhaps to the Christian right in all its glory, is a description of Judas Iscariot as ""the apostle who allegedly betrayed Jesus to the Romans".
Suddenly it is "allegedly". Police speak for the accusation. This, of course, because of the new Judas texts which purportedly paint Judas in a kindly light. So now we must be careful in how he is described. Now this religious fundament is in question. Cautiously "alleged". It is unproven.
Rather like the rest of the bible, really.
news and religion
1 comment:
I rather agree with your comment about the "new revelations about Judas". It is of course not a particularly new idea any way. There has long been an orthodox tradition that without Judas, Jesus would not have been able to be the hero! There is an elegant literary tale here, for another day.
Don't quite agree with your snipe about the unproven nature of the Bible.
Is "proving the Bible" really what the issue is? I don't think so! And what does it mean to say such a thing.
Does "Jane Eyre" need to be proved true to contain some profound insights about the nature of heartfelt love and tragedy? The point, I suspect, is in the telling.
Whether the Bible is "historically accurate" begs all sorts of questions about what accuracy means. Or about whether the Bible is an historical text.
My point...it's all a bit more complex than you want us to think.
Post a Comment