Avatar

That would about sum it up. The Gospels were supposedly written by his other disciples. Thay certainly didn't feel any reason to love the man.

I wonder what would have happened if Judas had written a diary of his own? Would it have ever been included in the Bible? Or would it have been smothered by the growing church?

Interestingly, that exact premise is part of the plot of a videogame titled "Final Fantasy Tactics". In the story, the hero finds out that the being that was their world's version of the Messiah was in fact a major league villain...by discovering the writings of the man who had betrayed him.

*Ahem*

End of derail. :wave:

chokmah

Hello All. First post, what a thread to start off on!

Technically, HaMoshiach (the Messiah) was not to come to the earth to save mankind. In Judaism, this is unnecessary as seen in 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Isaiah 45:22. Repentance is what brings forth the forgiveness of sins through the grace of G-d.

There are a number of reasons for Messiah's coming, but salvation to the world is not one of them.

Regards,

chokmah

John A. Broussard

It's nice to see so many avenues opened up by this thread, but I'm still left with my original question unanswered--which is why should Judas be villified for facilitating the salvation of mankind (or at least its Christian portion)?

WHY he did what he did should seem, at least to me, to be irrelevant. When the geese of Rome saved the city from the heavy-footed Gauls, the geese were then regarded as sacred. But I rather doubt they raised the alarm for any other reason than because their sleep was disturbed.

Maybe human beings differ from animals in that they have to be judged by what they intend to do rather than by what they do. So Judas would have been a saint if he had played out his role for the right reasons.

Does that follow?

Crowley

Also, in at least one version displayed in the gospels didn't Judas throw the money back at the Sanhedrin demonstrating his regret.

Matthew 27:
3. Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4. saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5. And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6. The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."

And when you really think about it, was Judas's betrayal all that great? Its not like Jesus was really in hiding. Lots of people had seen his face and knew he was the man the Sanhedrin were looking for. Judas only expedited the process by pointing him out to a group of soldiers so they would know for certain they were getting the right man. I mean, in modern times the police use snitches all the time and we don't think they should suffer some great and terrible fate.

Toto

Judas is a fictional character, a late addition to the story (Paul knows nothing about him). He fits the profile of a stage villain in the Greco-Roman theater; he provides the conflict, thickens the plot, and then confesses his evil ways and dies on stage at the end of the play, so that good triumphs over evil.

His dramatic purpose is to be villified. But he did not exist, so you don't have to waste any time worrying about whether it is fair to blame him for anything.

John A. Broussard

Judas as a fictional character is a new one. At least I hadn't heard that view before. Toto makes a good case for it. It still doesn't answer why so many have villified the supposed betrayer of Christ, though.

More important is the fact that, even without Judas, Jews have been villified in the past (and still are by some) as Christ killers. They aren't fictional. So what's the justification for that? I'm quite ready to accept the answer, "There is no justification," but how do those who believe there is explain their views?

Toto

It is not original with me.

Doesn't everyone like to boo the villain in the cartoons?

I don't think many will admit to taking that point of view. The current party line, endorsed by the Pope and all respectable denominations of Christianity, is that today's Jews should not be blamed for the sins of the leaders of their community 2000 years ago. I can't say if their view would have evolved were it not for the Holocaust rubbing their noses in the consequences of that idea.

Blaming today's Jews (or 3rd century Jews, or 16th century Jews. . .) for killing Christ involves notions of curses passing down to one's descendents. No one believes that anymore - but it was an important part of religious doctrine at one point, with Biblical support.

Other explanations would involve a discussion of scapegoating or other psychological factors.

It is most likely that "Judas" represents the Jews who did not convert to Christianity, who were the religious rivals of Christians in the second century, and who were villified by the Christian faction for not joining them. If this particular drama were being written today, the villain of the piece would probably have swarthy skin and look vaguely Arabic, and possibly speak with a French accent. Americans would heartily boo him, while claiming to be tolerant and not at all racist.

rlogan

That's interesting. Perhaps there is more than one take on him. More than one motivation. I agree on the dramatic purpose. It is human nature to despise him.

HB quote mining in constructing the character also is oberved:

Psalms 41:9 - betrayed by a friend, with whom he ate:

"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."



Zechariah 11:13 (thirty pieces of silver; potter)


12: And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
13: And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.




The mining of Zechariah makes for a contortion in Matthew, as indicated by Crowley. Throwing the money back to the house of the lord to buy the potter's field. (well, at least by the time Acts is written, it becomes specifically for the purpose of buying the field).

Agemegos

Indeed not. On the other hand, the supposition that what he did condemned him to an eternity in the Ninth Circle of Hell and saved all the rest of Mankind does not itself mean that his action was magnanimous.

If Judas knew that betraying Christ would save the rest of Mankind from God's wrath, and if he knew that it would mean his own utter ruin, then his actions would indeed deserve the description 'magnanimous'. But the traditional version does not depend on this construction, and therefore there is no inconsistency in Judas being punished for acting his part in God's plan. The story does not depend on Judas making a knowing sacrifice. It works fine with him being selfish and wicked and deserving everything he got.

There are plenty of stupid aspects to God's Second Big Sting. This just isn't one of them.

Agemegos

I'm sorry, I have evidently been unclear. Consider as many extra "if" qualifiers added to my statement as are necessary to make it clear that I am only pointing out that there are possible constructions of the story that do not depend on any degree of magnanimity on Judas's part.

I do not maintain that there is only one possible interpretation of this rather ill-drawn character. On the contrary, it is my very point that John Broussard's suggested interpretation of Judas as the witting and willing servant of God's plan is not the only one. The multiplicity and variety of possible readings of the part of Judas serves, indeed it is, my point.