Classics and the Western Canon discussion

“Three Versions of Judas”

Summary: This story is told in the form of an article about Nils Runeberg and his theories about Judas and his betrayal of Christ. In the first edition of his book “Kristus Och Judas” (“Christ and Judas”), Runeberg argued “Judas’ betrayal was not a random act, but predetermined, with its own mysterious place in the economy of redemption…to repay that sacrifice, it was needful that a man (in representation of all mankind) make a sacrifice of equal worth.” Based on theological refutations, Runeberg rewrote parts of his book and adjusted his argument. He now asserted that Judas committed the sin of betrayal due to “a hyperbolic, even limitless asceticism…Judas sought hell because joy in the Lord was enough for him. He thought that happiness, like goodness, is a divine attribute, which should not be usurped by men.” Runeberg’s second book “Den hemlige Fralsaren”(“The Secret Savior”) argues that “God was made totally man, but man to the point of iniquity, man to the point of reprobation and the Abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the lives that weave the confused web of history; He could have been Alexander or Pythagoras or Rurik or Jesus; he chose an abject existence: He was Judas.” When his book doesn’t do well, Runeberg sees the hand of God who “did not want His terrible secret spread throughout the earth.” He feels cursed and lost in his own reasoning. After his death, his work is remembered by those who study heresies.

Possible starting points for discussion:
1) Several of the stories in this collection have explored betrayals and the relationship between the betrayed and the betrayer. What makes this story different from the previous stories?
2) The story offers several theories about the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Why are there three different theories, and why does Runeberg keep changing his reasoning?

My apologies for this late posting. I’m curious to hear what you make of this story, which I found somewhat mystifying.

Borges loves a paradox, and there is hardly a more paradoxical figure than Jesus. I think the central paradox here is that God takes a human form and suffers like a human. On the face of it this should be unnecessary. Certainly God, who is all powerful, could redeem humankind without becoming one. But Runeberg treats Jesus like someone who needs to be redeemed himself, and he thinks Judas does this by debasing himself. This is ridiculous on a few levels, but mostly because Judas is just a man, not God. Runeberg finally comes around to this in the third version by making Judas the Redeemer instead of Jesus, a weird Nietzschian reversal.

The thing Runeberg seems to miss is that in Christian tradition the suffering of Jesus comes from God's love of mankind. It seems to me that without this the paradox becomes a theological toy susceptible to the kind of manipulation we see in the Three Versions.

Thomas wrote:” . It seems to me that without this the paradox becomes a theological toy susceptible to the kind of manipulation we see in the Three Versions.."

My reaction to this story was to wonder why it was a story instead of a theological treatise. Perhaps this is Borges playing with his idea of writing a survey of someone’s work and his fascination with heresies/gnosticism, but is that enough for a work of fiction? I kept waiting for a clever twist or another level of meaning, but if they are there, I missed them.

“The End”

Summary: Recabarren, the owner of a bar in a remote area of the plains, is paralyzed and unable to speak after a stroke. He listens to the guitar playing of “a black man who had shown up one night flattering himself that he was a singer; he had challenged another stranger to a song contest, the way traveling singers did. Beaten, he went on showing up at the general-store-and-bar night after night, as though he were waiting for someone.” A man rides over the plains and arrives at the bar, where he is recognized by the guitar player. “‘I knew I could count on you, sir,’ he softly said…‘I’ve been waiting now for seven years.”’ After some conversation, the two men walk out onto the plains together, prepared for a knife fight. The black man speaks “‘One thing I want to ask you before we get down to it. I want you to put all your courage and all your skill into this, like you did seven years ago when you killed my brother.’ For perhaps the first time in their exchange, Martin Fierro heard the hatred.” The men fight, and Martin Fierro is killed. The black man walks back toward the bar. “His work of vengeance done, he was nobody now. Or rather, he was the other one: there was neither destination nor destiny on earth for him, and he had killed a man.”

Some possible starting questions:
1) What is the fate of the black guitar player at the end of the story?
2) What is the significance of Recabarren?

Here's something that puzzles me. The opening sentence of "The End" is: "Lying prone, Recabarran half-opened his eyes and saw the slanting rattan ceiling" (Kerrigan trans.). If he is lying prone, i.e. face down, he's not going to see the ceiling. Is there some subtle meaning to this apparent contradiction?

Roger wrote: "Here's something that puzzles me. The opening sentence of "The End" is: "Lying prone, Recabarran half-opened his eyes and saw the slanting rattan ceiling" (Kerrigan trans.). If he is lying prone, i..."

It looks like just a quirk of Kerrigan’s translation. The Spanish is: “Recabarren, tendido, entreabrió los ojos y vio el oblicuo cielo raso de junco.” Google Translate renders this as “Recabarren, lying down, half opened his eyes and saw the oblique ceiling of reeds”. Andrew Hurley translates it as “ Lying on his back, Recabarren opened his eyes a bit and saw the sloping ceiling of thick cane.” It’s interesting that the story starts with the observer rather than either of the other two men. Recabarren reminds me in a way of Funes, who was also bedridden, although Recabarren’s role in the story seems limited to an observer.

“The End”. 1) What is the fate of the black guitar player at the end of the story?

In several stories in this collection, characters change places or “double” for each other. In the finishing sentences of ”The End,” there is an implication that the black guitar player now takes the place/role of Martin Fierro, “the other one as: “His work of vengeance done, he was nobody now. Or rather, he was the other one: there was neither destination nor destiny on earth for him, and he had killed a man.. Perhaps this implies that someone else will now look for him to revenge Martin Fierro’s death, and the story will continue.