The blockbuster “The Dark Knight” is perhaps a contemporary twist on a short story by Borges called “Three Versions of Judas”. Their uncanny resemblance prompts me to lay my heretical thoughts here. I sincerely apologize if I offend anyone.
.
The Dark Knight
“The Dark Knight” tells the story of the people in evil-infested Gotham City: how they put all their false hopes in a “knight in shining armour” – the “incorruptible” district attorney Harvey Dent. Batman, the true but masked hero, who had to conceal his real identity, was the “dark knight”: he might be doing good but he was too much clouded in secrecy. The “knight in shining armour” – Harvey Dent – was the preferred hero.
The citizens of Gotham, however, were unaware that Harvey had turned into the evil side due to a tragic event. His face was disfigured in an explosion, and his love was killed. Harvey started on a rampage to exact revenge.
Harvey, at the end of the movie, tried to kill Batman and Lieutenant Gordon’s family, Batman struggled with Harvey and killed him. The hope of Gotham City seemed to have died with Harvey’s death. The Joker seemed to have won. But what followed haunted me deeply (below is a brief paraphrase):
Gordon: The Joker had won. Whatever chance Gotham had of fixing itself dies with Harvey’s reputation. . . . People will lose all hope.
Batman: No. They won’t. They can never know what he did.
Gordon: We can’t sweep that under!
Batman: No. But the Joker cannot win. . . . Gotham needs its true hero.
Gordon (realizing Batman going to assume the burden of Harvey’s sins): You? You can’t—
Batman: Yes, I can. . . . You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I’m not a hero, like Harvey.
Gordon: No! You can’t! You’re not!
Batman: I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be.
Gordon (voice over narration during Harvey’s funeral): “A hero—not the hero we deserved, the hero we needed. Nothing less than a knight. Shining.”
Bat man (voice over narration): “You’ll condemn me, set the dogs on me . . . because it’s what needs to happen.“
Gordon (voice over narration): “He’s the hero Gotham deserves . . . but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”`
You can watch the full ending here:
The ambiguity of good and evil, and the naive and blind acceptance of falseness as truth - sadly resonates throughout human’s religious history. Looking back at the Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Hunt, and today’s many false Faith Healers and Catholic priest’s sex scandals (plus many more that I dare not name) … are these not the doings of Harvey Dent?
Then who does Batman symbolize? To answer this, let’s turn to Borges’ short story ‘Three Versions of Judas’.
.
Three Versions of Judas
It is story by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. In the story, a fictitious writer Nils Runeberg wrote three versions of Judas Iscariot – the disciple who betrayed Jesus Christ – in his two books. The three versions are really three “interpretations” of Judas’ betrayal:
(below summary is from wikipedia)
- Version 1: Judas as the human counterpart of Jesus : it was Judas who was the reflection of Jesus in the human world, and as Jesus was our saviour sent from heavens, Judas took up the onus of being the human who led Jesus down the path of redemption.
- Version 2: Judas as the extreme ascetic : “The ascetic, for the greater glory of God, degrades and mortifies the flesh; Judas did the same with the spirit. He renounced honour, good, peace, the Kingdom of Heaven, as others, less heroically, renounced pleasure.”
- Version 3: Judas as God and the real Savior : God incarnated in a human shape that would be “made totally man, but man to the point of iniquity”. Committing a sin would also not be beyond Him. Thereby, He chose Judas as his incarnation.
Yes these are heretical indeed! I dare not expand further, but can only hint that perhaps Batman is Judas – they both assumed the burden of sins so that the “knight in shining armour” can keep on shining the world for eternity despite the ugly truth.
click here to read the full English translation of the short story …
.
Gospel of Judas
I recently watched an intriguing documentary: National Geographic: The Gospel of Judas. The Gnostic followers of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Judas, presumably between 2nd to 4th century AD. As summarized by Wikipedia:
The Gospel of Judas asserts that the other eleven disciples had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot. The Gospel of Judas interprets Judas’s act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to Jesus. Jesus required a second agent to set in motion a course of events which He had planned. Judas acted as a catalyst.
The ending of Borges’ story claimed that such interpretation of Judas was the secret truth. If such secret were to be known, then the meaning of the Messiah’s sacrifices would become meaningless. The world would have lost its hope and its Redeemer. Therefore, this interpretation had been deemed herectical, thereby ironically fulfilling its purpose.
.
What then is the truth of the historic sacrifice two thousand years ago? Are we not then living centuries later still under the illusion of that purported truth, despite all the ‘dirty secret’ that had been revealed in our religious history?
