Judas: Loyal Disciple, Betrayer Of Jesus, or Myth?

[Cuchullain]

I just picked up a revisionist history of Judas. The premise of the book is that Judas was the most loyal of the disciples of Jesus, and only did what Jesus wanted him to (I.e., he was the catalyst to Jesus' martyrdom). That got me thinking: what does everyone think about Judas? Was he the great betrayer that the New Testament makes him out to be? Or are the original texts incomplete, and misinterpreted? Was he, in fact, the most loyal of all, performing a task that none of the others had the strength to perform? Or do you just believe that the New Testament is largely myth, and Judas Iscariot never really existed?

 

[The 777 Hoax]

My belief is that what is in the Bible happened and nothing is left out. Judas betrayed Jesus.

 

[Evie]

There's no way to ever know why Judas betrayed Jesus (assuming Judas did indeed exist, which we have no reason not to).

Speculation could follow any number of lines :

Who (ie, who set Judas up to betray Jesus)

-Jesus
-Judas himself
-The Jewish priesthood
-The Romans
-Certain of Jesus' allies (for example : if you believe in the theory that Jesus survived the cross rather than being resurected, the allies who helped him do so)

Why? (What was Judas' primary motivation?)

-Greed (he was bribed)
-Disilusionment (Jesus "betrayed" the expectations Judas had in him - the "warrior savior" and all).
-Change of Heart (he decided he thought/was convinced Jesus was a false Messiah)
-Needs (he thought Jesus HAD to be sacrificed for the cause)

Just off those, there are lots of possible combinations on "why Judas betrayed Jesus". And we'll never know which it was.

The gospels, written several years later by people who probably had no liking for Judas whatsoever, can't be trusted at all on why Judas ultimately did what he did.

 

[mitsho]

Are you refering to the new Judas-gospel found and translated recently? That coptic document found in Egypt who tells the story that Jesus took Judas beside for a talk between four eyes and told him that he was the most important of the disciples because he would be the one to free Jesus sould from his body.
It's an interesting story, but nevertheless it is just another early Christian document like there exists thousands of them. In the first few centuries there were so many denominations of the Christian beliefs and this is just another. There IS a reason why we now belief the other version. But of course, the whole story has a big fictious part in itself...

mitsho

 

[Evie]

It'S not like the common story had lots of insight in the actions of Judas.

 

[Dreadnought]

I believe the same things in the bible. Judas betrayed Jesus.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I just picked up a revisionist history of Judas. The premise of the book is that Judas was the most loyal of the disciples of Jesus, and only did what Jesus wanted him to (I.e., he was the catalyst to Jesus' martyrdom). That got me thinking: what does everyone think about Judas? Was he the great betrayer that the New Testament makes him out to be? Or are the original texts incomplete, and misinterpreted? Was he, in fact, the most loyal of all, performing a task that none of the others had the strength to perform? Or do you just believe that the New Testament is largely myth, and Judas Iscariot never really existed?

Did you read the recently translated Gospel of Judas, or is this just some Reader's Digest version?

There are so many "heretical" books of the Bible that I tend not to put much stock in the events that they describe. I suspect they, and all the gospels, are more legend than fact.

 

[Cuchullain]

Did you read the recently translated Gospel of Judas, or is this just some Reader's Digest version?

There are so many "heretical" books of the Bible that I tend not to put much stock in the events that they describe. I suspect they, and all the gospels, are more legend than fact.

That's the book that I just picked up, though I have read revisionist theories regarding Judas before. The most prominent theory seems to be that he was neither: that he was, in fact, an ardent nationalist, who wanted a violent revolution to oust the Romans. When he realized that Jesus wouldn't advocate such a move, he became disillusioned, and betrayed him to the High Priest.

I've always been interested in the "selection process" that went into deciding which books should be included in the bible (both Old Testament and New), and which books should be left out. I highly doubt that those who made such decisions were entirely objective.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That's the book that I just picked up, though I have read revisionist theories regarding Judas before. The most prominent theory seems to be that he was neither: that he was, in fact, an ardent nationalist, who wanted a violent revolution to oust the Romans. When he realized that Jesus wouldn't advocate such a move, he became disillusioned, and betrayed him to the High Priest.

Sounds like anachronistic nationalism.

I've always been interested in the "selection process" that went into deciding which books should be included in the bible (both Old Testament and New), and which books should be left out. I highly doubt that those who made such decisions were entirely objective.

It's religion. It's anything but objective.

 

[Plotinus]

As far as I can tell, there isn't really any evidence about Judas other than what's in the canonical Gospels. Which isn't to say that they are necessarily right, but still, it's all anyone's got. Personally I think that claims that he was some kind of Zealot who tried to hurry things along or felt betrayed by Jesus' lack of political action are just romantic stories, rather like tales about Mary Magdalene being a former prostitute or marrying Jesus (all right, maybe not quite that unlikely, but still). There isn't really anything to support such ideas. I don't know what you mean by asking whether or not the choice of the NT canon was "objective" - what exactly would be the difference between an "objective" procedure and a "subjective" one? However, it's pretty much certain that of all the "gospels" knocking around in late antiquity, the ones that actually did make it into the NT (especially the Synoptics) are the only ones with any chance of preserving genuine historical traditions about Jesus and his associates. So if you're talking about historicity, the early church does seem to have made as good a choice as it could have.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I always hoped that Judas was better than the Gospels (especially John) portrayed him. After all, his betrayal was a necessary step in the process by which mankind would be saved, and Jesus gave up his life willingly, so why should he go to hell for it?

I always felt that maybe Judas had a better motive for his act - it makes sense that Jesus would have told him to turn him in, or maybe at the least he was trying to force the issue, and make Jesus reveal himself as the Messiah that Judas thought he was.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Judas betrayed Christ so he could die for our sins. He set us on the path to salvation, so Judas was a necissarry evil

 

[Kyriakos]

Perhaps he wasnt a myth, but either way the story of a small jewish sect should never had had such an effect in mankind. Whereas theology is as much a real 'science' as literary criticism (albeit a more decadent one), i would hope that the psychological significance of all those characters in the bible will be gradually lessened in the future, until they are reduced the analogous level of significance ancient gods have.
Besides, we have literature for stiring up the internal pools of animism and subconscious connections

 

[Leif]

I think he's a myth of the Liberal media...

Actually, I don't believe him to be especially good or evil. Although if I have to pick a religious text about Judas to read, I would chose the Gospel of Judas.

 

[Kosez]

Even before this Gospel of Judas came into public, I had some thoughts. If Jesus was god, and God is almighty, then there is no way Judas could betray Jesus against his will. Judas could not betray Jesus without orders from Jesus or God. So Judas just did what he was told to.

Off-course these random tods were occuring to me before I finnally realized that there are too many different and opposing stories about Jesus and God, so this stories cannot be true and are just a load of c*ap. I became atheist after that revelation. I find logic only in atheism.

 

[warpus]

If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Jesus would have never died for our sins.. So I don't see why Christians villify the man who helped bring us closer to salvation - especially since Jesus was fully aware of the fact that he was being betrayed - and by whom. He was perfectly willing to go through with it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Jesus would have never died for our sins.. So I don't see why Christians villify the man who helped bring us closer to salvation - especially since Jesus was fully aware of the fact that he was being betrayed - and by whom. He was perfectly willing to go through with it.

I never wanted to villify him. As a Christian, I saw him as just a "pawn" (for lack of a better word) to bring about Christ's sacrifice. Just like Pilate and Caiaphas, who may have thought that they were in control of the situation but weren't.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Perhaps he wasnt a myth, but either way the story of a small jewish sect should never had had such an effect in mankind. Whereas theology is as much a real 'science' as literary criticism (albeit a more decadent one), i would hope that the psychological significance of all those characters in the bible will be gradually lessened in the future, until they are reduced the analogous level of significance ancient gods have.
Besides, we have literature for stiring up the internal pools of animism and subconscious connections

And the crash landing of an experimental balloon in a desert should not have led to a widespread conspiracy theory about aliens and the US government... but it did.

 

[DBear]

life imitating art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_Cross_and_Dragon

 

[warpus]

I never wanted to villify him. As a Christian, I saw him as just a "pawn" (for lack of a better word) to bring about Christ's sacrifice. Just like Pilate and Caiaphas, who may have thought that they were in control of the situation but weren't.

So are you saying that these people didn't have free will, but rather the illusion of it?