You asked that I write something about the experience of composing those two presentations made to the Lenten study group last February.

The whole experience was invaluable to me. Partly that was true because of the great respect and affection I have for ... Peter Culman and John Roberts, and the pure enjoyment of the interaction and "sparking" that went on among us. Partly it had to do with the more solitary exercise of imagination.

I wanted to discover a credible interpretation of the texts that would avoid the stereotypes of conventional piety, humor the faithfulness and the earthiness of the disciples, invoke the seemingly inevitable ambiguity of even the best of human be-havior, and connect clearly with our own contemporary modes of expression. As I sat down to write I had no idea what would emerge.

I was surprised, delighted, and troubled by the outcome ... In the case of Judas I discovered early on that if he was genuinely to be depicted as a traitor he could not also be understood as an unqualified embodiment of evil. If he does not somehow or other love, admire, and trust Jesus, then betrayal is not an accurate description of what he does. The confusion caused by arrogance and ambition constitutes the wrong reason for his doing the right thing, i.e., the very thing which, as the Christian story tells it, leads to the shameful crucifixion inextricably connected with the glorious resurrec-tion. I was expecially pleased to discover the connection between a plausible depiction of Judas' ambition and the earlier story of James and John asking to sit at Jesus' right hand. I also like the sense of Judas as a jaunty, pumped up, take-control kind of guy. Finally, I take great delight in having Judas anticipate in his own distorted way exactly what later Christians claimed, viz., that Jesus was "going to pull off some extraordinary feat" and that Pilate and all the others would "see and tremble before they get everything they deserve."

In the Judas account perhaps the most surprising, rewarding, and troubling insight had to do with the connection between love, deception, and betrayal. I heard echoes of the mysteries of incarnation, resurrection, ascension, and second coming. I felt the elusiveness of purity of heart for us all. I found myself toying with the terror that inevitably accompanies promises with cosmic import that are as yet unfulfilled. Will the holy de-ceiver also in the end betray? I felt the company of Abraham on Mount Moriah and Job facing the whirlwind.

No small part of my pleasure and learning came from hearing what Peter Culman and John Roberts produced and from the general discussion by the whole group assembled to receive our dramatic readings. Imagination as foundational for herme-neutics was generally acknowledged, as it should and must be.

Thanks again greatly for inviting me to participate in the work of the ICJS in this way.

Cordially,
Carl N. Edwards