who's betraying who?

The New Text on the Block
Somebody must have planned this...

Just before Easter 2006... Just before Dan Brown's book-made-movie (you know the name) hits the screens... A new 'ancient document' surfaces...

(yes, I just used 'new' and 'ancient' in reference to the same thing...)

The 'gospel of Judas' is it's name and generating much discussion is it's game.

'Judas' is one of a few dozen extra-biblical (non-canonical, apocryphal, etc...) writings, and may be trying to surpass the Gospel of Thomas in popularity. Most scholars seem to agree that the text is definitely a product of the Gnostics (a movement in early Christianity dubbed heretical by early Church leaders). Gnostic thought is known for it's concern for all things spiritual (and conversely it's boredom with physicality) as well as having a pre-occupation with 'special' knowledge.

Why the fuss? Well, 'Judas' seems to paint a radically different picture of the disciple that many people love to hate. 'Judas' is said to suggest that the 'traitor' was not acting against, but in accordance with Jesus' wishes. This has been suggested before, with some positing that the Greek word behind 'betray' might also be translated 'hand over.' At any rate, 'Judas' is said to be the first ancient document that supports this suggestion.

Axe-grinding anyone?
So what's the deal with 'Judas?' Is this a closer glimpse into history or just some 'early heretic' propaganda? Have we another Church cover-up on our hands or is the best response to 'Judas' simply a big yawn?

These are great questions that deserve serious discussion and investigation, and though cans of worms are fun to open, there are just too many with this subject. Whose version of history should we believe? What are the axes being grinded, whose are they, and which one is bigger?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, 'Judas' and others all have axes to grind, and so do I. I am a Christian and I'm aware of the effect that has on my evaluation of this subject. Having said that, let me offer my contibutions...

Necessary Evil or Savior's Sidekick?
Starting with the canonical gospels, they all four seem to paint the 'betrayal' in a negative light. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Jesus' foretelling of the betrayal and His stern 'Woe' to the betrayer. John adds Jesus' command for Judas to do what he was planning to do and also Jesus' words that one of the twelve is a devil. Not exactly positive, light-hearted friendly sentiments! All four canonical witnesses make it clear that the betrayal is not secret to Jesus, so the real question is; what was Judas thinking? Well, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Judas' infamous 'meeting' with the chief priests, who were wanting to kill Jesus, and so indicate his 'pre-meditation.' Also of note, is the record in Matthew that Judas 'repents' of his 'sin' and subsequently hangs himself. To say that Judas had a guilty concience would be a slight understatement. My summary of the canonical Gospels is this: a possessed and bribed Judas collaberates with the chief priests and others who were seeking to kill Jesus, who has fore-knowledge of this, does nothing to stop him in his actions, and even excuses Judas from the last supper table. Afterwards, Judas 'repents,' gives back his bribe-money and commits suicide.

On to 'Judas' and the Gnostic perspective. 'Judas' paints Judas as the only disciple who truly understands Jesus, the one whom Jesus shares His 'secrets' with and the one whom Jesus says will 'exceed them all'. The Gnostic author(s) certainly seemed to feel that Jesus approved of Judas' actions, but what's going on? Why paint Jesus and Judas as partners in crime? Perhaps a look at an ancient reference to 'Judas' will help.

In A.D. 180, a Church leader named Irenaeus wrote about certain 'others' (widely accepted that the reference is to Gnostics) who wrote about Judas:

"They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas." (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

In this light, the 'Judas' account fits nicely into what we know about the Gnostics and their relationship to the Church leadership. The Gnostic pre-occupation with knowledge rears it's head once again in their portrayal of Judas as having more and/or better knowledge than the other disciples. I am led (no surprise) to the same conclusion Irenaeus came to concerning 'Judas' - it is indeed 'ficticious history.'

So what about Jesus? Did He 'approve' of Judas' actions? Does Judas get off the hook for simply obeying orders? My bias is that Judas knew the ramifications of his actions, acted anyway, and as a result took his own life in an expression of sheer self-hatred. As for Jesus' approval, now that's a tricky question, the answer which is found only after first making a distinction between Jesus' will (what He wanted) and His plan (what He knew would happen). I suggest that while Judas' actions were indeed sinful, Jesus was no more surprised by them than He is by any of our sins.