Walter said:
What an interesting comparison...
Judas, just like
Gollum, is most often seen just as the villain. Judas is the no-good egomaniac who sells the saviour for 30 pieces of silver.
But a closer look may even here bring up some interesting aspects that may throw a different light at Mrs. M's comparison. Just like Gollum had his "alter ego"
Sméagol, Judas
sicarius, the 'murderer' or 'assassin', probably had one too. In the light of biblical scholarship of the last century it appears quite plausible that Judas Iscariot is identical with Judas Thomas, the (twin-)brother of Jesus, who is said to have "betrayed" Jesus, but with that probably only fulfilled Jesus' order (which was necessary to fulfil the prophecies; e.g. Zech 11:12; 12:10).
But just like Gollum, Judas Iscariot was playing an important role, without which the "greater plan" could not have been fulfilled, without which the world could not have been saved and both, Sméagol and Thomas (
thomas is the aramaic word meaning 'twin') had to pay dearly in order to fulfil the divine plan,
the one with his life, the other with his honour...
I am very wary of "modern" Biblical scholorship which is often less than objective and tries to "disprove" earlier versions. Much of the problem with the Bible and its relatively different "versions" has to do with translations from Hebrew, Greek or Latin - and especially Greek.
The old saw that "the Greeks have a word for it" is not without truth. For instance, the King James version translates the word into "charity"; later translations, "love". However, there are many different
kinds of love which are quite clear in the Greek.
Another problem is the word "brothers" used to indicate St. James and others apparently "related" to Christ (Thy Mother and Thy brothers are outside and wish to see Thee...). In the Greek, the term is "brethren" meaning those in one's family, but not necessarily siblings. Since the Scripture speaks of a
virgin birth (and not merely "a young woman" becoming pregnant - hardly a "miraculous" event!), to suggest that Christ had brothers and sisters directly contradicts the teaching of the early Church - and continued today in the Orthodox East and the Roman West that Mary is the "ever Virgin" Mother of
God (Theotokos). In the early Church, the understanding was that the "brethren" alluded to in Scripture were the children of Mary's
husband, Joseph. Now, according to the early Church documents and Tradition, Joseph was an older man who took Mary into his home as "wife" when she had to leave the Temple wherein she had been consecrated to God by her mother and father the elderly Joachim and Anna. There she had lived since she was a child of about three. Of course, once she reached puberty, she could not longer remain in the Temple precincts for biological reasons and so, like other of these "consecrated" young virgins, she was "given in marriage" to a man who was widowed and already
had children in keeping with the tradition of continuing the family line. The idea was that these older
men would look after and provide for these "vestal virgins", leaving them both money and their own family to care for these young women after the older "foster husband" had died. This was, according to the documents and Tradition of the early Church, a common practice for such young girls. Therefore, even though the information is not contained in Scripture, the early Church had sufficient documentation to determine that Joseph was such a man and that those whom Christ called "brothers", were in fact, His
step-brothers, the children of his foster father, Joseph. Unfortunately, these nuances of familial relationships did not survive garbled attempts to translate Scripture from its early sources.
As for Judas: we must remember that Jesus of Nazarath had as many as a hundred followers with Him most of the time - men
and women! Of those, He chose
only twelve to be not His "disciples", but His "apostles". Among them was Judas. Therefore, Judas could hardly have been a man of no standing among Christ's followers nor could he have been openly of questionable character. And so why did he betray his Master? Who knows? Perhaps Judas was one who wanted the type of Messiah desired by the zealots - that is, someone to bring down God's wrath and defeat the Romans, re-establishing Israel as a mighty nation. Certainly we know that Judas repented of his actions and even declared himself guilty of the shedding of "innocent blood"! Yet, surely he must have known the fate to which he was condemning Jesus - the Sanhedrin had hardly been secretive in its efforts to find some reason to apprehend and condemn Christ! Nor was Judas stupid so, perhaps (as has been suggested in at least one film) he wished to "push" Christ to reveal Himself by putting Him in mortal peril and thus "force the issue".
Whatever the reason, Judas for at least a very short time walked a fine line between salvation and damnation. Indeed, he could have been one of the greatest saints of the Church - had he only asked for the forgiveness of the Man he betrayed and those who had trusted him (Jesus' followers). But instead (like
Denethor more than Gollum), he was not able to abase himself and humbly ask for that forgiveness. Instead, because he could not live with his ultimate sin, he chose to take his own life and thus damn himself forever.
Gollum, on the other hand, does not resemble Judas in
this way. The resemblence is strictly narrative, not motivational. He betrays the person to whom he has pledged faithfulness (
Frodo) and his betrayal leads - unexpectedly and unintentionally - to the desired outcome of the matter. Judas also betrayed the Person to whom
he had pledged faithfulness and
his betrayal
also led to the "desired outcome" of the matter. Without Gollum, the quest would have failed even though it was certainly
not Gollum's intention to bring the quest to a successful conclusion. Without Judas, Scripture would not have been fulfilled and God would not have been able to redeem mankind -
at least at that time. He would have eventually succeeded (one
cannot "thwart" God!), but we have no idea how. Yet, Judas obviously did not foresee the ultimate result of his actions nor is it probable that he really
intended that result - that is, the crucifixion of Christ. Gollum's motives were simple and obvious; Judas's were considerably less so.