Spy Wednesday

There is a tradition for calling the Wednesday in Holy Week "Spy Wednesday", though I am not certain how widespread this usage is. At first I thought it might be exclusive to certain Romans (among whom, indeed, I first heard it), though I am informed that Anglicans also use the term. In any case, I like it: it is certainly more evocative than "Holy Wednesday", just like "Maundy Thursday" is better than "Holy Thursday". (Though I have found multitudes of people who pronounce Maundy as "Maun-day", as if it were some sort of bastardization of "Monday". The name probably comes from the Latin mandatum, referring to the new commandment Christ spoke of, shortly after washing the disciples' feet. This is the sort of thing people should know.) The name "Spy Wednesday" presumably comes from the trouble Judas Iscariot was getting up to, agreeing to betray Jesus to the chief priests. (So Judas was a spy, I guess? Expect to see my screenplay, Judas Iscariot: International Man of Mystery, any day now. I'm sure there's a clever tagline for that to be written. A Bond pun, perhaps? Or something about thirty shekels?)

It is no surprise that the character of Judas should be a matter of some fascination for modern man. What could drive someone to betray Jesus? Doubt? Disillusionment? Mere greed? No single reason really seems sufficient.
Borges addresses the idea of Judas in a pseudo-scholarly article (or, perhaps more accurately, a scholarly pseudo-article), Tres versiones de Judas. The work is short enough that I recommend you go ahead and read it presently. If you are accustomed to Borges, it is a deliciously characteristic article.

(An aside: Borges writes that

Judas buscó el Infierno, porque la dicha del Señor le bastaba. Pensó que la felicidad, como el bien, es un atributo divino y que no deben usurparlo los hombres.

This resonates curiously with something else I have been pondering, the idea of Christian happiness. I sent a spoof comparing horrible prosperity theology to Schopenhauer to a correspondent, who wrote back with some salient points about the nature of Christian suffering. Apparently, in her essay collection The Sovereignty of Good — which I must needs pick up sometime — Iris Murdoch writes that the idea of Christianity's emphasis on suffering as the chief end of human life is a misconception, brought about by Enlightenment thought. Borges had read his Schopenhauer, to be certain.)

Anyway, Borges presents an altogether not-unsympathetic view of Judas, though, as always, it is difficult to determine how sincere he (Borges) is. It is all absurd heresy, anyway. I suppose Borges delighted in the thought.

Dante, of course, places Judas in what is presumably the very worst part of hell, being eternally eaten by the most unpleasant of the three mouths of the devil. In other literature, however, Judas is afforded some small mercies. In the Navigatio Sancti Brendani, St. Brendan and his explorers find Judas sitting on a miserable rock in the middle of a storm-tossed sea. Yet this is in fact a respite compared to the torment he suffers in hell: Ego sum infelicissimus Judas atque negociator pessimus, he says; non pro meo merito habeo istum locum sed pro misericortia ineffabili Jhesu Christi. (In an oddly specific listing, Judas is spared on Sundays, between Christmas and Epiphany, from Easter to Pentecost, and on the feasts of the Purification and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.) Even for the worst sinner, the "ineffable mercy of Jesus Christ" applies. We might take some comfort in this.