As the British folksinger Leon Rosselson put it in his classic “Stand Up for Judas”:
Down Christ! STAND UP FOR JUDAS!
You’re more than welcome to disagree. I’d be interested, however, in knowing why. I’ve presented a fairly standard approach to the matter, complete with sources from opposite ends of the spectrum of mainstream academia–the rather liberal Jesus Seminar and the decidedly more conservative Raymond Brown.
Geeze try to coin a word. How about Ponderings? Reflections?
This has been discussed recently.
If you take the scriptural account as a basis, then Judas committed grievous sin when he betrayed Jesus, as several people have indicated from the quotes. If you don’t take the scriptural account as a basis, you can speculate on Judas’ motives, etc. and make up whatever you want.
He made his choice and played his part, which is all any of us can do.
Some good references mentioned in this thread for further reading, thanks for that 
If we don’t take the scriptural account as our basis, what would you suggest we use? I’m not aware of another source, and using no source at all isn’t inquiry, it’s witchcraft. The problem isn’t whether or not we should take it as our basis, it’s whether or not we should accept it in its entirety prima facie. We shouldn’t.
For what my two cents is worth, I doubt there ever was a Judas Iscariot, and any inquiry into his motives is largely moot. It’s almost a Midrashic story, but not quite Midrash. There’s a name for the type of story it is that escapes me now, I keep wanting to say Targum, but that’s not quite right either. Perhaps a Judaic poster can field that for me (or a non-Judaic one, for that matter), as it’s a technique employed in Rabbinic literature:
What’s the term when a story uses the same basic idea as Midrash in that it retells other Jewish stories to make a new point, but differs from Midrash in that the point made is not one regarding the Law?
Regards.
I forgive you. But I still think DaVinci’s interpretation is as valid as all the others I’ve read here.
You didn’t give DaVinci’s interpretation–which isn’t an interpretation at all, it’s simply artistic license–you gave your conclusions from DaVinci’s painting. Exegesis from a painting retroacted onto the centuries earlier gospels. Spice that up with some imaginary events (Nothing, for example, is said of Jesus altering his appearance in Luke 4.16-30–indeed for him to do so would fly flagrant in the face of Luke’s understanding of who Jesus was. You would have it that Jesus was “well-known for altering his appearance.” Funny, there’s no narrative prior to the resurrection experiences that clearly attribute such a change; apparently he wasn’t so well-known for that after all. In similar fashion, you’ve misunderstood why John’s betrayal lacks a Judas kiss. It’s because such an event would be unfathomable to John–it would take control away from Jesus. Thus the “Agony in the Garden” in John has no agony, Jesus’ dying words are a majesterial “It is finished,” and Judas does not deliver him with a kiss. Everything–particularly in the Passion–is completely controlled by Jesus in the fourth gospel.), and we more or less have your reconstruction.
The point, of course, is that this isn’t exegesis, it’s eisegesis. You’ve taken DaVinci’s depiction, coupled with your own conclusions, and forced them back on to the texts, rather than allowing a conclusion to spring forth from them. An eisegetical conclusion, as a general rule, isn’t valid at all.
Regards.
That’s kind of my point. Speculation into Judas’ motives and outcome typically begin with a rough outline of the Gospel accounts, and then run off into a random intellectual exercise. The source material for Judas’ actions also condemns those actions.
But there are scores of interpretations that spring from the texts and our knowledge of the culture, rather than must be foisted on them.
Perhaps, for example, Judas was sympathetic to Caiaphas’ counsel:
Or perhaps, as a Jew under Roman rule, Judas felt greater allegiance to the High Priest and to Rome than he did to Jesus.
Or perhaps Judas was disappointed to learn that his leader was not the Messianic king that was expected, and that frustration was manifesting itself.
One could speculate indefinitely, the question is whether or not that speculation can be supported–whether its speculation as a result of investigation, or just random guessing. Whether it’s inquiry or witchcraft, to use my earlier designations.
Regards.
Judas was a patsy. I’m sure there was another apostle on the grassy knoll.