Apostasy and Shusaku Endo’s Silence
When I found a used copy of Shusaku Endo’s Silence at Powells I thought it would be a great time to read this work of fiction from one of Japan’s “foremost novelists” (someone had talked about it up at Regent once and I have wanted to read it since). In brief: read it. It is a wonderfully written story about a Portuguese Catholic priest in the foreign world of Japan who must deal with core issues of faith: why is God often silent? His struggle is also the struggle of many missionaries to Japan in 17th century who were forced to look apostasy in the face. Shusaku Endo‘s “masterpiece” has received both acclaim and harsh criticism. I imagine there are those within the Roman Catholic church that would call Endo a heretic, but the issues that he raises must be dealt with by all Christians. Simply calling “heresy!” is a cop out: it may be heretical, but it cannot be ignored.
To warn you right off the bat, this is going to be a long post with lots of “spoilers” and quotes from the book. While I will primarily be discussing the theological statements and not the story line, it will be impossible to not give things away. If you feel like the impact of the book will be lessened by reading about it (including the climax), read the book first and then come back; if not, keep on reading!
While Endo’s story is a work of fiction, it was based on real events. The lead character, father Sebastian Rodrigues, is even based on a man named Giuseppe Chiara, a missionary that secretly entered Japan with 9 others in 1643. The harsh Lord of Chikugo, Inoue, and Christovao Ferreira, the apostate Portuguese Provincial who Rodrigues is attempting to find, were real people. During the Edo period Japan changed from an open willingness to foreigners and foreign missionaries to a closed society with violent persecution of many from the Christian faith (so as not to disparage this period too much: it was also a great time of development for Japan). The so called “swamp of Japan” made it very difficult for Christianity to take root. It often ended up being Buddhism with a facade of Christianity over the top that could be easily removed under persecution. Such was the landscape of Japan; a place that needed Christianity to adapt and when it didn’t, things became difficult. In a biography of Endo (Shusaku Endo: Japanese Catholic Novelist, Thought, Winter 1967.) he said this of the Catholic Church (which I think applies to the catholic Christian church in general):
But after all it seems to me that Catholicism is not a solo, but a symphony… If I have trust in Catholicism, it is because I find in it much more possibility than in any other religion for the presenting the full symphony of humanity. The other religions have almost no fullness; they have but solo parts. Only Catholicism can present the full symphony. And unless there is in that symphony a part that corresponds to Japan’s mud swamp, it cannot be a true religion.
This novel is obviously speaking directly about Japan, but the sentiments hold true globally. Jesus Christ came to save all who would accept him. His scope was global, so should Christianity’s. This means that Christianity cannot and will not be the same in every society and culture. Endo is pointing out how the rigid entrance of Christianity to Japan had difficulties. The translator of Silence points out that Shusaku Endo’s voice and commentary on Christianity’s struggle in the 17th century is but one voice and not all agree with him. That being said, the novel speaks to some very interesting issues.
As I get into the novel, it is a good thing to remember that Endo is a writer and not a theologian. While his narrative delves into big issues, he is not necessarily bing prescriptive, but descriptive (humm… kinda like the Bible I suppose…).
“What did the face of Christ look like? This point the Bible passes over in silence.” Two big themes of the book are addressed early on: the face of Christ (which often serves to comfort, strengthen, and calm Rodrigues) and the silence of God (which serves as an internal conflict for Rodrigues who eventually comes to terms with how God uses silence). The forced apostasy of Christians is introduced by some amazing prose: “At the command [Kichijiro] let fall on the fumie the insulting spittle that could never be effaced.” Kichijiro is a character that returns often and is used to present the character of weakness and failure: often being a thorn in Rodrigues’ side. Fortunately Rodrigues realizes that “a priest does not exist in order to become a martyr; he must preserve his life in order that the flame of faith may not utterly die when the church is persecuted.” This also leads well into one of Silence‘s prevalent themes that is evidenced by Rodrigues’ thoughts:
How many of our Christians, if only they had been born in another age from this persecution would never have been confronted with the problem of apostasy or martyrdom but would have lived blessed lives of faith until the very hour of death.
Difficult word to hear, but it is also hard to deny their validity. So what does that mean? Does that mean that unless we are faced with apostasy or martyrdom, we won’t know if we have strong faith? Since this is one of the big issues, I will come back to it later.
After Rodrigues has been captured by the authorities and put in jail and because of the cavalier nature of the guards, sin comes to mind:
Sin, he reflected, is not what it is usually thought to be; it is not to steal and tell lies. Sin is for one man to walk brutally over the life of another and to be quite oblivious of the woulds he has left behind.
Well stated, yes?
Coming back to the discussion of apostasy, the Japanese officials’ demands to step on the fumie came with interesting “incentive”:
‘The sooner you get through with it, the sooner you’ll get out of here,’ roared one of the officials. ‘I’m not telling you to trample with sincerity and conviction. This is only a formality. Just putting your foot on the thing won’t hurt your convictions.’
If this was true, why did it matter? Why didn’t the Christians just do it? If their convictions were not changed, why wouldn’t that trample that inanimate object and be set free?
The story come back to Kichijiro and the issue of persecution:
If there had been no persecution, this fellow would undoubtedly have lived out his life as a happy, good-humored Christian man. ‘Why was I born into the world! Why? … Why…?’ The priest thrust his fingers into his ears to shut out that voice that was like the whining of a dog.
Two things seem important here: 1) Again the notion that our faith might not seem as strong as we think it is and under most circumstances, that is ok because we will never have to deal with the persecution that would damage that faith, and 2) The priest Rodrigues seems to see something of himself in Kichijiro and despises the reminder that they are somewhat alike that wants to block him out (something a priest shouldn’t do). Is this something Christians should worry about? Is it truly weak to not want to be a martyr? Later, Rodrigues finally meets with his apostate priest teacher, Ferreira, who is trying to show Rodrigues the “error’ of his ways by discussing some of the Japanese Christians that suffer for their beliefs that would be freed if Rodrigues apostatizes:
‘Alright. Pray! But those Christians are partaking of a terrible suffering such as you cannot even understand. From yesterday - in the future - now at this very moment. Why must they suffer like this? And while this goes on, you do nothing for them. And God - he does nothing either.’
The priest shook his head wildly, putting both fingers into his ears. But the voice of Ferreira together with the groaning of the Christians broke mercilessly in. Stop! Stop! Lord, it is now that you should break the silence. You must not remain silent. Prove that you are justice, that you are goodness, that you are love. You must say something to show the world that you are the august one.
The first thing that came to mind when reading Ferreira’s “Why?” was: “Because you allow for it to happen!” Ferreira (to a degree) and (primarily) the Japanese officials allow for it to happen. (The statement from Ferreira seemed ironic because he was the one that was actually allowing the pain of the Christians to happen.) This is the classic “problem of pain” that Christians have always had to deal with. The fact is, people are fallen, sin runs rampant in our world. It wasn’t because Rodrigues wouldn’t apostatize, it is because of the orders of the officials. All this is true, but then the cry of Rodrigues were also true. “Lord, it is now that you should break the silence.” How heartbreaking! Christians cannot deny that God, at times, is silent, or at least appears to be silent. It also seem that the word “appears” often creeps in to these discussions in defense of God. Is that necessary? Is it only that God appears to be silent? Or is God truly silent in these moments? Somewhat later Ferreira makes an interesting statement:
‘You make yourself more important than them [the suffering Christians]. You are preoccupied with your own salvation. If you say that you will apostatize, those people will be taken out of the pit. They will be saved from suffering. And you refuse to do so. It’s because you dread to betray the Church. You dread to be the dregs of the Church, like me.’ […] ‘Certainly Christ would have apostatized from them.’ […]
‘No, no!’ said the priest, covering his face with his hands and wrenching his voice through his fingers. ‘No, no!’
‘For love Christ would have apostatized. Even if it meant giving up everything he had.’
These are difficult words to fight against. Hard words to believe, too. It seems that one of the claims we Christians like to make is that we strive to be selfless and unselfish. So are we selfish with our salvation? Do we put our salvation above others? Is that something we should be selfish with? Could it be an act of love to apostatize? Would Christ have turned his back on God to save others from pain and torture? Of course one reaction to this is that turning your back on God is an eternal decision whereas the torture of the Christians was a temporary thing. I think that is a very valid argument against Ferreira and the Japanese officials, but that doesn’t remove the suffering from the Christians.
Now you are going to perform the most painful act of love that has ever been performed.
Really? Ever? I kinda think crucifixion might be the reigning champion. Be here the climax comes written so powerfully. I cannot tell if it is because Rodrigues’ character has grown on my throughout the story of it this particular passage was just written so perfectly, but it was impossible to not start blubbering:
‘It is only a formality. What do formalities matter?’ The interpreter urges him on excitedly. ‘Only go through with the exterior form of trampling.’
The priest raises his foot. In it he feels a dull, heavy pain. This is no mere formality. He will now trample on what he has considered the most beautiful thing in his life, on what he has believed most pure, on what is filled with the ideals and the dreams of man. How his foot aches! And then the Christ in bronze speaks to the priest: ‘Trample! Trample! I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. Trample! It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share men’s pain that I carried my cross.’
The priest placed his foot on the fumie. Dawn broke. And fan in the distance the cock crew.
Later on the now apostate priest would later murmur to himself: “What matter about all this. It is not they who judge my heart but only Our Lord.” And then:
‘What do you understand? You Superiors in Macao, you in Europe!’ He wanted to stand face to face with them in the darkness and speak in his own defense. ‘You live a carefree life in tranquility and security, in a place where there is no storm and no torture - it is there that you carry on your apostolate. There you are esteemed as great ministers of God. You send out soldiers into the raging turmoil of the battlefield. But generals who warm themselves by the fire in a tent should not reproach the soldiers that are taken prisoner…’ (But no, this is only my self-justification. I’m deceiving myself.) The priest shook his head weakly. (Why even now am I attempting this ugly self-defence?)
I fell. But, Lord, you alone know that I did not renounce my faith. […]
I wonder if there is any difference between Kichijiro an myself. And yet, rather than this I know that my Lord is different from the God that is preached in the churches.
It was unbearable for him to see his own ugly face in the mirror that was Ferreira - Ferreira sitting in front of him, clad in the same Japanese clothes, using the same Japanese language, and like himself expelled from the Church.
So what did the apostasy mean? Rodrigues has changed immensely, some for good and some for bad. He knows who Christ is and why he came. Is he not saved?
The issue of God’s silence returns in the end with a conversation between Rodrigues and Christ:
‘Lord, I resented your silence.’
‘I was not silent. I suffered beside you.’
‘But you told Judas to go away: What thou dost do quickly. What happened to Judas?’
I did not say that. Just as I told you to step on the plaque, so I told Judas to do what he was going to do. For Judas was in anguish as you are now.’
Then the final interaction with Kichijiro who still wanted absolution:
‘There are neither the strong nor the weak. Can anyone say that the weak do not suffer more than the strong?’ The priest spoke rapidly, facing the entrance. ‘Since in this country there is now no one else to hear your confession, I will do it… Say the prayers after confession… Go in peace!’
Kichijiro wept softly; then he left the house. The priest had administered that sacrament that only the priest can administer. No doubt his fellow priests would condemn his act as sacrilege; but even if he was betraying them, he was not betraying his Lord. He loved him now in a different way from before. Everything that had taken place until now had been necessary to bring him to this love. ‘Even now I am the last priest in this land. But Our Lord was not silent. Even if he had been silent, my life until this day would have spoken of him.’
Orthodox? No, not quite. Heretical? I don’t know if I would go that far. We should definitely stand up for our faith, all the time! I would even say we should always be willing to die for our faith. Does that mean we always should? If you have managed to make it this far in the post [I am impressed!], what are your thoughts on the matter? I don’t think it is black and white as we would like it to be. I cannot think of a truer statement when Christ speaks to Rodrigues and says “It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world.” That doesn’t necessarily condone apostasy, but that really is why Christ was here, to take our sin. Judas betrayed Christ. Even Peter denied Christ three times: Rodrigues only did it once before the cock crowed.
LOVED this book too. Great to read your thoughts and to be reminded of the things that struck me while I read it.
Is that something we should be selfish with? Could it be an act of love to apostatize?
It struck me here that Paul says he was willing to be accursed if it would save the Jews *. Every time I read that verse it strikes me that I can’t even fathom thinking that.
If Paul was willing to do that, I’ve got to conclude Jesus would be infinitely more willing. Lucky for all of us the universe isn’t set up that way.
Gah! Now I have to buy it!
Hey Andrea, good to hear from you, glad my thoughts brought some of it back for you.
Kristin that is a wonderful point. Romans 9.3ff (the one Kristin linked):
Paul was willing to be doomed so that others could take part in the covenant in is fulfilled in Christ. To me, that is definitely putting others’ salvation above his own. I would agree that if Paul was willing to do it, Christ would as well. Thanks for pointing to that scripture Kristin!
Heh, omninaif: it’s true, you do.
Very interesting post. My thought as I read through your post was that Jesus had the opportunity to apostasise and save his followers going through persecution, torture, and death.
“No man takes my life from me…”
He knew - he knew what would happen to his followers. He told them what would happen to them. He didn’t apostasise (and there’s the question of whether he could have) - but the point is he didn’t.
The flaw I picked up as I read was the thinking that physical survival best serves the mission. That’s a yes and no answer.
Can’t remember the reference but there’s a chapter in Acts - James was martyred. Same chapter, Peter is miraculously released from prison. Two different physical outcomes for the two main figures at that time in the promulgation of the gospel.
We think dying is losing, living is winning too often. Because it is more difficult to predict the outcomes from the martyrdom of some-one than to predict the game plan for some-one who is alive.
Hence Jesus followers were not full of confidence immediately after his crucifixion.
I think the priest, as I read the excerpts here anyway, has distorted Christ in a way. Jesus never said it would be easy. He made it clear that sufferings and persecutions would occur. It’s difficult, and I wouldn’t comment except that since it’s in a book it’s open for comment.
As for Paul saying he would even wish himself accursed - I always took that to be that if he did anything to deter his own people he would rather be cut off. That to my mind fits the context better, and is in keeping with his thoughts overall, in which he never shied away from the reality of facing physical suffering and death. Particularly when he was advised what would happen if he went to Jerusalem.
Long comment I know - but it was a long post!
I definitely agree. And while I do think the Love Christ has for his followers could have, in theory, allowed him to apostatize, the reality of the situation would make it impossible for him to do so (How does God renounce God?). I think it could have been possible for Paul, but Christ could not deny the Truth.
Indeed! And I think one of the reasons for this post is to not necessarily defend those who would apostatize, but to show that it is not so black and white. Martyrdom and persecution will come in all forms (something that we don’t really face) and I think that we can’t really judge those who would apostatize because we don’t know their heart. Endo definitely makes a pretty good case for it in Rodrigues. Again, I don’t really want to defend apostasy, but merely suggest that it might be defendable.
I agree. And one of the things that Endo does in the story (which I don’t think really came through in the post) was that it wasn’t merely a choice of pain and suffering and death OR apostasy for Rodrigues, it was that Rodrigues had to apostatize or deal with the torture, suffering, and pain of the other Christians that were suffering on his behalf. If it had “merely” been torture and death for Rodrigues, he probably would have chosen that over apostasy, but he could not handle the suffering of others that would be “easily” ended if he stepped on the fumie.
Great thoughts there, I don’t deny that all your points are valid, I think they are definitely something that we need to take into consideration when look at this issue. It is just a very difficult issue.
” ďż˝Lord, I resented your silence.ďż˝
�I was not silent. I suffered beside you.�
�But you told Judas to go away: What thou dost do quickly. What happened to Judas?�
I did not say that. Just as I told you to step on the plaque, so I told Judas to do what he was going to do. For Judas was in anguish as you are now.ďż˝”
—-
That struck me more than anything, especially paired with the gripping moment of Jesus saying: “Trample! Trample! I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. Trample! It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share menďż˝s pain that I carried my cross.”
I’m not sure what I can add except to say that I’ve never thought of it before. And it creates an even more tragically beautiful picture of God’s plan for His Son while on earth. So often we criticize Judas, and perhaps it did happen as we often imagine it. But this portion of the book causes me to look twice and examine it all again.
I’m sure it pained our Master to tell his intimate disciple that his future sin had to happen before sin itself could break in two.
Except that the gospels don’t indicate Judas was in anguish. We are told Satan entered his heart. That’s a pretty cold and ruthless motivation. Today we see people who are absolutely fanatical in what they want to achieve and who don’t care who they kill - the Osamas of the world. I think the narrative indicates Judas was more in that line.
Matt,
“not necessarily defend those who would apostatize, but to show that it is not so black and white.”
I don’t disagree. I blogged something not long ago looking at Wiig and Centanni’s forced “conversions” to Islam, which were suggested to their kidnappers by a Christian mediator. Extrapolating that out and asking what would I do as a hostage was a tough question. Unless faced with it I can’t be presumptuous and say.
That’s why I said in my comment I wouldn’t normally comment but it is in a book so it’s up for comment.
However - the issue of others suffering on his behalf - still points to Jesus knowing others would suffer on his behalf. The Nazis used similar ethical double binds on people.
What I don’t like from the book excerpts you have here in the post is this twisting of who Jesus is, of the Truth of who he is, and this too sympathetic picture of the persecutor (Judas).
I completely understand that Peter denied Jesus and was later forgiven.
It’s not that I don’t understasnd the complexity, it’s something in the portrayal of Jesus himself that doesn’t sit right with me. Yes, admit the failing, the denial. But no, don’t recast Jesus as an example of that. That I think is what doesn’t sit right.
Well I shouldn’t say Jesus was recast as an example of that since it doesn’t appear to go that far - but he is recast in a way.
Julia, I think that said it amazingly well. And I definitely agree that we should continue to reexamine what we have previously seen.
I would have to disagree with that. Firstly, Judas was one of the twelve, he was a close friend to Jesus and the others. To me this suggests that he is not at all like the “Osamas of the world” but more like you and me. Secondly, Matthew 27.3f says
To me, that sounds quite similar to the previous passage (Matthew 26.75):
I don’t think it is a coincidence that these two passages appear together. Both men have denied Christ, the difference is that Judas doesn’t see any way out other than killing himself (obviously the wrong choice). But I think it is still important to note that Judas felt remorse. I have no doubt at all that he was in anguish.
I don’t really know if it is a twisting of who Jesus is, but looking at things from a different vantage that we have never been in. I also don’t see Judas as the persecutor, I see him as a sinner who screwed up horribly.
And really, I don’t think I am quite disagreeing with you, I guess I just don’t see the story as recasting Jesus as someone that He isn’t.
I guess I would like to ask this (to everyone): How are we not “stepping on the fumie“, as it were, in our every day life? We deny Christ in our actions all the time! We are sinners. We are Peter. We are, I would even go so far as to say, Judas. No, obviously not as significant as that denial, but we deny none the less. Sin is sin, it isn’t graded on a scale.
Matt,
I figured you would bring up Judas after the betrayal. But that isn’t the parallel I’m making. We know that Judas was an accuser, we know he stole from the money that was donated for the poor, and we know Satan entered his heart.
The point is that you or I could become a Judas, or an Osama. Not that we are. There are degrees in this, as Romans 1 bears out. Sorry but no, Judas was not in anguish about betraying Jesus - and his remorse was not directed toward God. Jesus referred to him as the son of perdition.
We can understand the humanity, and the depravity, we can certainly see our own heart without Christ - but that doesn’t change the fact Judas was a persecutor. It’s an accurate description. The fact that he was one of the twelve simply shows he was there. Jesus knew who he was. Anguish describes an emotional state. It doesn’t mean he was repentant. Anguish can be a sign of genuine repentance and it can also be completely self-obsessed.
The essence of this is that we don’t want to judge. We are aware of our own human nature.
At the same time, we can look at Jesus,and he is recast in the excerpts. Contrast Jesus words about his followers suffering persecution and death on his behalf with the antinomian theology in this book.
These two things need to be separated out - firstly that it is a difficult situation and if faced with it we cannot predict our response. We understand God forgives. We also understand that there is a remorse which is not God directed, and which is self centred. We need to distinguish.
Secondly, we do not change who Jesus is.
I think I know what you are trying to say. We shouldn’t rush to judgement. I haven’t. But I’m not going to cave in to a false portrayal of Judas that contradicts the clear portrayal in the gospels. Neither do I see Jesus as self-contradictory. If you can show me from the gospels where jesus gave permission for his followers to apostasise you’ll have me. Other wise we acknowledge that Christians blow it sometimes, in difficult circumstances. It’s still blowing it, and it still requires repentance and forgiveness.
“Judas was one of the twelve, he was a close friend to Jesus and the others.”
He was a false friend though.
Judas says he’s sinned by shedding innocent blood. To whom does he say it? To the religious leaders. It’s religion, appearance. He looks in the wrong place. After following jesus all this time he still doesn’t get it. Not God directed.
Yes, these sort of discussions usually come round to the “let’s look at ourselves in everyday life” appeals.
I do - the philosophy underpinning antinomianism is one I encounter.
When a friend is considering an abortion and has a list of reasons why an abortion is preferable to the difficulty and suffering she will have if she goes through with the pregnancy.
When a friend has a relative who is terminally ill and wants to get illegal drugs for him because he is in pain.
What do I say to these people? They have the same argument in essence - God will forgive me if I go against conscience to alleviate the suffering of another?
Life is not straightforward. I don;t know what your life experiences are - I’ve had many and been posed some ethical dilemmas (I’ve only mentioned two). I have to know who Jesus is, understand what he has said, and not get so sympathetic that I start losing the boundaries.
Your post was very interesting. I don’t know what I would do in that situation. I’d like to think I would hold my faith. God only knows though. Meantime in real life I am asked for advice and have to gently navigate my way with my knowledge of both Jesus character and truth.
I said, “Sorry but no, Judas was not in anguish about betraying Jesus”. I meant leading up to th betrayal, and when he did it. His motivation was ruthless and self-seeking. After - well I commented on that. He d=hadn’t made a good PR move, knew people would judge him, wanted the appearance of religious absolution. Quite anguished over all that I think. Peter on the other hand was in anguish in regard to what he’d done to God.
The externals may appear similar, the hearts were different.
FWIW, I’ll just throw out that the early church had some debate about apostasy back in the Roman days. There’s some fun reading on the Novatian Schism, if you want to look into it. Granted it was a big power grab, but still.
I’d give you more details if I had books in front of me, but I don’t and the intarwebs is being singularly unhelpful, so you’re on your own from here.
Catez, I just don’t see Judas as being portrayed in the Bible as the pure evil you suggest. I definitely don’t buy into all the gnostic Gospel of Judas garbage out there now, but I also don’t think he is from the devil.
I don’t see any indication of that at all. By the account I have seen in scripture it seems that he is one of the 12 and just as much a friend as any of the other apostles. He just screwed up much more than the others.
If it was merely a bad PR move I don’t think he would have committed suicide. I am not really sure how you can see his supposed intent in repentance from the text. The text says “he felt remorse” - not “he felt remorse because now people would think badly of him.”
Interesting read Kristin. I didn’t realize that it was official Catholic policy that apostates could be pardoned by penance. It is also somewhat funny that Novation wanted to make a power move and just decided to pick that issue. I guess he needed something (although I could think of numerous issues that he could have chosen…).
“Catez, I just donďż˝t see Judas as being portrayed in the Bible as the pure evil you suggest.”
Matt it would be helpful if you didn’t put forward things I haven’t said. I didn’t say Judas was “pure evil”. I have said he had a ruthless motivation. He was motivated by Satan when he betrayed Jesus - that is clearly shown in the account. So I’m not appreciative of being cast into a position that makes me sound like I’m just painting some-one as “pure evil”. Please read my comments carefully.
There’s nothing in the gospels that indicates Judas was the sort of friend you describe other than that he was there. I’ve looked at what we are told about him. Satan entered his heart - that was the decline he got to over a period of time.
Again - if you can show me from the gospels that Judas was a good guy who just screwed up one time then you’ll have me. But what I’m seeing is you reading in your own identification rather than reading what we are told about him.
Of course, and I hope this is obvious from my comments, the potential to degenerate and be a false professor is there for anyone. Doesn’t mean everyone is though. There is a difference between screwing up sometimes and living as a false professor.
Of course Judas was concerned with religious standing - you look at where he came from - it was very important.
The interesting thing is you made a comment about Judas suicide and said “obviously the wrong choice”. Why is it the wrong choice?
Because the answer to that question leads to the same issues.
I have already commented on some real life examples of how antinomianism becomes an issue.
Life doesn’t come with neat and tidy examples - but Jesus is the Truth. Sorry, but taking an over-sympathetic view of Judas (he was a friend who screwed up - poor guy) is contradictory to what we are told about him.
Jesus is the one we relate to in our weaknesses, who having been tempted as we are was yet without sin. Not Judas.
I’m not sure why you mention the gnostic “gospels” - they have no relevance to the true events. I didn’t think you were advocating them.
I don’t think I am being over sympathetic, especially since we aren’t actually told much about him.
I turn to Jesus in my weakness, but cannot relate to him in that way because he was not weak. I can relate to Judas’ weakness because he was obviously weak.
What do you think would be the main themes in this book?