Did Judas get a bad rap?

[Atreyu]

This OP was inspired by some of the comments regarding Judas in this Cafe Society thread on Jesus Christ, Superstar.

When I was a kid, I had always seen Judas as just your basic betrayer. The Synoptic Gospels portray Judas as a traitor motivated by simple greed.

When I re-read the Gospels as an adult, however, I got a different perspective. In particular, when I re-read the Gospel of John. The portion that changed my perspective is reprinted below:

"…Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.”

The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking. One of his disciples–the one whom Jesus loved–was reclining next to him; Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in ths dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the bread, Satan entered into him.

Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
–The Gospel of John, Chapter 13, Verses 21-27. NRSV.*

Here, Judas’s motivation does not appear to be greed. Indeed, it almost seems like Jesus assigned Judas the role of betrayer, for “Satan” did not enter Judas Iscariot until after he had been named the betrayer.

And Jesus flat out instructs Judas to fulfill the role of traitor.

Joseph Campbell, in his Transformations of Myth Through Time series, which has been published in book form, discusses the story of Judas a little bit. I’m in the midst of re-reading this book. In Chapter 11 of that book, he mentions some of the differences between the ancient Mithraic traditions and the Christian traditions:

The contrast between the Mithraic and Christian religions, which were contemporary rivals for the Roman mind, was that in the Christian tradition the savior is the one who is killed, while in the Mithraic, the savior is the one who kills. Actually, the one killed and doing the killing–this is the same power.

This is why the Christian tradition has done a mean job on Judas. He is the midwife of our salvation. The negative and the positive are two aspects of the play in the field of time of the one power. According to the Gospels, at the Last Supper Jesus says, “He to whom I give the sop will betray me.” He then dips a piece of bread in the wine and hands it to Judas. Is that not an assignment? Of the twelve, Judas is the one worthy to play the counter role to the sacrifice.
–Transformations of Myth Through Time, by Joseph Campbell, Chapter 11, p. 224*

So, in the Synoptic Gospels, you have Judas portrayed as a man who sells out Jesus for some money, but in the Gospel of John, you have Judas that is apparently designated the role of betrayer by Jesus himself.

Why the different takes on Judas? Based on most of the Biblical analysis that I’ve read, the Gospel of John was the last of the four gospels to have been written…could this apparent softening towards Judas’s culpability have represented a shift in thought towards his role in helping bring Christianity into existence?

And if Joseph Campbell is accurate in his description of Judas as the “midwife” of Jesus’s plan to sacrifice himself, is the bad rap that has been pinned on Judas afterwards truly undeserved? After all, if Jesus had never been crucified, you might not have had anything resembling modern Christianity to begin with.

I should note for the record that although I was raised Christian, I’m quite firmly in the agnostic camp today.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I have seen variations of Campbell’s themes in a number of places, including particularly some of the stories of Borges. For myself, the question is purley academic, but I think it hinges upon 2 elements:
Does Judas know with certainty that Jesus is God?
Does Judas know/think/believe that Jesus’ promise of slavation requires his sacrifice?

If the answer to both of those questions is “yes”, then I think Judas should be considered the first Christian saint. If the answer to either question is “no”, then he’s either a greedy bugger or a helpless pawn of a manipulating deity. I suppose, though, that the “good soldier” position could be defended, too. “He was just doing hat his commander told him to.” Still not what I would call an enlightened ethical position, even if the answer to question (1) was yes, but that’s just my POV.

[Urban_Ranger]

I believe so. Without Judas YHWH’s plan cannot be completed, so his role is of critical importance.

[Nobody]

Jesus wasn’t assigning the role to Judas, he just knew what would happen. And as for the part where it says that Satan entered him…
In the story of Moses, it kept saying that the Pharo would originally let the Israelites go, but then GOD would harden his heart, Pharo would change his mind, and GOD would punish Pharo for not letting his people go, even though he’s the one who kept Pharo from freeing the Israelites.
I once asked a priest about that story saying how is it fair that GOD would harden the Pharo’s heart, and then punish him for it. And it was explained to me that since the writer of the story was Jewish, that the concept of Pharo, on his own, defying GOD, was unthinkable. It would be as crazy as seeing a tornado coming your way, and you just standing there defying it. So, to the writer’s mind, the only reason that Pharo would defy GOD would be if GOD was the one causing it himself.

[Urban_Ranger]

Yeah, but isn’t the bible supposedly, eh, “divinely inspired?”

[Siege]

Actually, I once wrote an essay describing the betrayal from the point of view of Judas. Atreyu, if you like, I can send it to you and to anyone else who was interested. That or it’s short enough (4 paragraphs) that posting it here isn’t out of the question. By the way, this essay actually was published in my church’s newsletter the day I left for a two week vacation in England (there are some limits to my foolishness).

My take on it based on some research is that Judas was a Zealot, someone who believed that the Saviour would lead a violent, military take over of Israel by the Jews, kicking the Romans out with a sword, a warrior leader of old like Joshua or King David. I think Judas honestly thought that the arrest would lead Jesus to reveal himself in all His kingly glory, bringing down hordes of angels with swords. Instead, not only did Jesus consent to His arrest, He actually healed one of the people arresting Him. No angels, no swords, just one awful mistake from Judas’s point of view.

It’s all speculation, but it was an interesting essay to write, and a reminder to me about how my expectations can differ from God’s plans.

CJ

[Gaijin]

Notice that “Satan entered him” after Jesus pointed him out. I’ve always taken that as metaphorical for just “getting very angry” after Jesus exposed him in front of his posse. Additionally, he doesn’t so much command Judas to betray him as to betray him quickly. I’ve taken this as akin to telling my doctor to give me the shot quickly so I don’t have to experience too much anxiety from anticipating the needle.

And regardless of it’s Biblical accuracy, Jesus Christ Superstar kicks ass.

[Drastic]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**Yeah, but isn’t the bible supposedly, eh, “divinely inspired?” **

Somehow or other, that view gets linked to the idea of literal inerrancy. I’m not sure why. “Inspired” means, in the etymology sense, breathing in. So the divinely-inspired-Bible view holds that the human authors didn’t write the various books of it themselves, but were wind instruments playing God’s tune, so to speak. But I don’t see why that even remotely means inerrancy–it seems to me that, regardless of the lungpower and control behind a breath, you’re just not going to get the same sound out of a stamped tin toy bugle that’s been left out in the driveway and accidentally backed over, as compared to, say, a high-quality trumpet.

[Guinastasia]

Personally, I think either way, he’s kind of a jerk-I mean, whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, and Judas was fulfilling a role, stabbing one of your friends in the back is pretty shitty in my book.

[Atreyu]

*Originally posted by cjhoworth *
Actually, I once wrote an essay describing the betrayal from the point of view of Judas. Atreyu, if you like, I can send it to you and to anyone else who was interested

I would be interested in reading your essay, cjhoworth. My e-mail address is in my profile.

[Philote]

I’d be interested in reading the essay too.

I don’t think Judas’ motives are explicitly revealed, other than that he was stated to be greedy (but at one point, doesn’t he express remorse?). I think the bad rap Judas has often gotten has not been so much for the deed he did himself, but regarding what happens to him afterward. Judas is often depicted at the worst of the worst, occupying the lowest level of hell, etc. But the doctrine of repentance and salvation is supposed to apply to everyone; presumably, Satan himself could repent and be forgiven. If Judas did repent, it should be just as possible for him to be in Heaven as anyone else.

As for the “Satan entering him” passage: I was going to mention the same thing that Joel did, citing that there are several places in the Old Testament where people attribute hardness of heart, pain, suffering, death, etc. on God directly. I’m not entirely sure it’s wrong to do so; it certainly reads to me like God is setting up His own conflict in a lot of places. But I’ve also heard it explained that “God hardened his heart,” etc., is another way of saying “his heart was hardened at God.” I’d be interested to know what you guys thought of that interpretation.

And to the passage itself, there are a couple of ways someone could argue that Judas’ free will was not being coopted: 1) Saying “Satan entered him” is figurative (like “God hardened his heart”), and really means that he chose the path of Satan. 2) He freely chose to open himself to the will of Satan, and Satan literally entered him and either passively or actively directed his actions.

I don’t know that I personally put a whole lot of stock in the figurative-translation defense, but I’m not so sure about the second. There are other passages where it seems like free will is being coopted; for example, those redeemed to Heaven are going to a place where there is supposedly no more sin, and never will be. Their natures are supposedly changed; that being the case, it could be argued that those going to Heaven will no longer have completely free will. The second defense I gave above might be a response to that: you have free will on Earth in order to choose whose will you will submit to, and thus still maintain responsibility for your choice when you are being “controlled” either by the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan. Maybe.

[kniz]

If you consider the betrayal as actually happening then I don’t see why Judas would be the midwife of the sacrifice of Jesus. I have never understood why the soldiers needed to have Judas identify Jesus.
There were plenty of people outside of Jesus’ immediate group that could identify him. When Joseph Campbell says Judas is the midwife, he is speaking of Judas playing a role in a myth. The answer to the question then depends on whether the story is literally the truth or a myth. Campbell regards all religion as myth.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by Joel *
Jesus wasn’t assigning the role to Judas, he just knew what would happen

But the role of Jesus was to be killed for our salvation (according to the christian religion…I’m atheist). So, Judas betrayal can be viewed as a necessary step, and Judas as only fulfilling the role he was assigned.

Personnally, I always perceived Judas as a victim, and as someone who did the job which had to be done, according to God’s will. I always been pissed off by the idea he could have been sent to hell (though my priest always stated that he was condemned for his suicide, not for his betrayal).

[Nobody]

clairobscur, You’re an atheist but you have a priest? No, I know what you mean.
But seriously, when I think about it, I guess that a good argument could be made that since Jesus was destined to die, then Judas was simply playing his role.
But as for whether or not he went to hell, being a Catholic myself, we’re taught that nobody really knows whether or not a person will go to heaven or hell, and that it’s pretty presumptuous to claim to know. Oh sure, We can make an educated guess, but ultimately, it’s just speculation.

[Siege]

Since Atreyu and Philote said they’d be interested, I thought I’d just add the essay to this post. It is an original work, so please feel free to share it with anyone who you think might be interested.
CJ

He let them do it. I can’t believe he really let them do it. I never dreamed he would actually be arrested, let alone charged and convicted. He’s the Messiah, the Son of God, isn’t he? Surely God wouldn’t let his own son be killed, would he?

They will kill him, though. I saw it in his eyes when the chief priest’s men came to lead him away. Heard it in his voice, too, for that matter. He who I once saw command a storm to cease and walk across the stilled waters will let himself be led away like a lamb to slaughter. What kind of a Passover will that be?

I honestly thought it would go differently when I gave the sign. That he would show himself in all his divine power and glory and Jerusalem’s reign would begin. Our Roman oppressors would be put to flight and the world would see that we were truly God’s people, chosen and victorious. No more would our people be scattered and enslaved. No more would we answer to foreign emperors who know not the God of Abraham and Isaac and Moses. Once more we would be free and all who oppose us slaughtered like cattle.

Instead, he will be slaughtered, and I, may God have mercy on my soul, am the cause of it. He might have freed us. He could still do it, but he won’t. He could command legions of angels as readily as I’ve seen him command demons, but he refuses to do so. He might even have stopped me, but he didn’t. All that power, all that authority, and yet he yields. What lesson could there be in that? All I know is that a blameless man will be killed like a common criminal, and I am the cause of it. How can I answer to him for my betrayal?

Found on a scrap of parchment next to a body buried in Potter’s Field

[casdave]

The betrayal of Jesus by Judas has been used as one of the reasons for the supression of the Jews by Christians for over a thousand years.

In the sense that Judas got a bad rap, one could say that Judaism got a bad rap, and millions of innocents were murdered because of it.

One cannot hold Jesus responsible for the actions of others, but those actions are partly a consequence of the events up to and including crucifixion.

If Jesus could predict his betrayal, then why did he not see the consequencies of that bterayal to an entire people, or is that the punishment they were meant to recieve for not recognising the Messiah ?