Give Judas a psychoanalysis

What comes to mind is this key question that has been suppressed in Christian discourse for thousands of years: " Why did Judas betray Jesus? "

Since the Gospel itself is full of loopholes, I no longer have confidence in explaining this issue through exegesis.

Judas' betrayal should be tackled as a psychoanalytic act out.

The difference between exegesis and psychoanalysis is that the former remains within the text to answer the question "Why?", while the latter analyzes the consequences of the discourse itself from outside the text, "What makes ..."

I imitated Lacan's interpretation of Atalia to interpret the records of the Last Supper in the two Gospels. However, the writing style of the Gospel author is basically the difference between Paris Baguette and Balenciaga, so I have to conduct my investigation through some exégèse, hoping that I can express my thoughts clearly.

But before that, let me walk you through Lacan’s reading of Atalia.

I reviewed the first act of Atalia and also reread the relevant section of the "Rivet Point" chapter in Psycho.

At the beginning, the signifier Abner threw to Joad was "zeal" (this signifier in the Bible specifically refers to Jewish fundamentalism with a tendency to riot). In response to Abner's zeal, Joad brought out this sentence: " I only fear God ." Lacan specifically emphasized that the " fear " here is not the "fear" that can be projected between one person and another in daily life, but the " fear " of the absolute.

The brilliance of Racine's script lies in that after hearing Joad's " fear ", Abner still asked Joad three times, and Joad responded to Abner's questions with three questions. This dialogue is very consistent with the experience of psychoanalysis. After such a dialogue, Abner's verbal sympathy for "zeal" was transformed into a decisive "now I join the ranks of the pious" through " fear ". " Action " occurs at the moment of " saying " this oath. It seems that in addition to God, what should also be " feared " is the power of the signifier to create something out of nothing.

The reason why " fear " can create a new subject, "Abner the Rebel", is closely related to Joad's analyst-like transfer. Meaning is consolidated in speech, and action is also a symbolized behavior.

Now back to “Why did Judas betray Jesus?”, back to the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:21-25:

“ Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”

They were deeply troubled and began to say to him, "Lord, is it really me?"

Jesus answered, “The one who dips his hand in the dish with me will betray me.

Then Judas, who was about to betray him, asked Jesus, “Rabbi, is it really me?” Jesus answered him, “You are right.”

The translation of "You said so" in the Chinese Bible is really stupid, because if this is what Jesus meant, then the other disciples present would never let Judas go. In fact, the original text is more ambiguous than "You said so": " This is what you said. "

Make a mark first.

" Rabi, could it be me?"

"This is what you said ""

Apart from the Gospel of Matthew, only the Gospel of John, which was written almost 30 years later, records the interaction between Judas and Jesus at the Last Supper. The Gospel of John reads:

" The man who leaned on Jesus' breast asked him, 'Lord, who is it?'

Jesus replied, 'To whomever I dip the bread, that person is the one'.

Jesus dipped a piece of bread and gave it to Judas Iscariot. With that piece of bread, Satan entered into his heart.

Then Jesus said to it, 'What you are going to do, do it quickly.'"

John, who was “leaning on Jesus’ chest ” (leaving aside the homosexual overtones of this scene), added, “No one at the table understood why Jesus said this to him. But some thought that he was saying to Judas, who had the money bag, “Buy what we need for the festival,” or that he was asking him to give something to the poor. ”

Make another mark

'What you have to do, just do it '

" Rabi, could it be me?"

"This is what you said ""

Judas's reaction is not recorded in Matthew.

To today's readers, Judas' question is very provocative, but that is purely because we have all preconceived that "the traitor is Judas." Excluding this bias, Judas' question, placed in the scene at that time - every disciple asked Jesus "Is it me?", there was nothing unusual, and Jesus would not have such a special reaction. Therefore, Matthew's record is very specious, and it is a very clumsy retrospective imagination. Judas and Jesus did say something, but when the gospel was written almost 40 years later, the author and a certain person present who he referred to could not remember what was said anyway.

" What you have to do, just do it quickly"

Upon hearing this, Judas's reaction is recorded in the Gospel of John:

" As soon as Judas ate the piece of bread, he went out immediately. It was dark at night. " After Judas left, Jesus seemed relieved and began to speak at length.

Two key signifiers: " do it ", " quickly ",

More important than these two signifiers is this: Judas remains silent throughout. Silence , " out ," " night ."

“ What you are to do, do it quickly ” is full of ambiguity for all the other people present, but it is not ambiguous for Judas. It doesn’t matter what happened between Jesus and Judas before this conversation. When the gospels were written decades later, the retrospective imaginations they made to explain Judas’ betrayal were generally poor: the quarrel in Martha’s house in Bethane, the 30 silver coins, all of which were to cover up the fact that it makes Christians’ backs cold: Jesus’ words inspired Judas to act out, and without Judas’ acting out, the whole drama of the Passion and Resurrection might not have happened .

The point is not these theological-historical conspiracy theories, but the difference between " listening " and " obeying ": Abner " listens " and Judas " obeys ", the difference is that the former asks questions , while the latter is silent. There is obviously another link between the words of the other and the birth of a new subject, that is, the listener's processing of the words. Abner answered fluently, but that was just a line. In real psychoanalytic activities, the analyst will be passively silent like Judas most of the time, so a lot of "after-the-fact" analysis is needed. "After-the-fact" is where the "analysis" really takes place.