2000 years later, Judas finally gets some PR help

"When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, 'truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.' The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, who Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, 'Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.' So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, 'Lord, who is it?' Jesus answered, 'It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.' So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, 'What you are going to do, do quickly. Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast'; or, that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.

-John 13:21-30, Revised Standard Version

Via Ezra, I see that biblical scholars have announced the discovery in Egypt of a Gospel of Judas, which is apparently setting biblical study on its ear much as previous Gnostic gospels like those of Mary Magdalene and Thomas did.

I find this fascinating, because of what it might mean for our understanding of the development of Christian theology. According to the Times article, the new gospel places Judas at Christ's right hand, a willing facilitator in an execution Christ welcomed, rather than as a Satanically inspired traitor. As an interpretation, it goes some way towards explaining the Passion as a necessary sacrifice for Christ to make, and as the article notes there are indications in the Gospel of John that Christ encouraged Judas to betray him.

The particular discarded bit of theology this brings to my mind, though, rather than Gnosticism, is the idea of the "Scourge of God." My exposure to this particular doctrine came through reading Shakespearean dramas like Richard III, in which good people are confronted with the question of why a merciful God would allow a wicked sinner like Richard to rise to kingship. The idea that Richard and similarly cruel kings were to be interpreted as intruments for God to punish nations for their sins was apparently very popular in the medieval period. It seems to me, anyway, that evidence of Jesus conspiring with Judas to effect his own betrayal could be seen as an unusually concrete example of God using a wicked man as an instrument in his works.

Unfortunately for Judas, the doctrine of the Scourge of God doesn't let him off the hook for his betrayal-the precise simile I remember reading cast the wicked king as a switch cut by a father to discipline an unruly child. And, once the child's been disciplined, the switch gets tossed in the fire.

All of this is entirely academic to me, but I do find it interesting that the story of the Last Supper is becoming increasingly Rashomon-like as more documents are discovered. You can interpret this anyway you like, and I find it interesting, unsurprisingly, from a secular historical perspective-did Christ actively seek out martyrdom? Why, exactly, did Judas betray him, before hanging himself? The new explanation in the Gospel of Judas is convincing for the first part of the question, but falls down on the second. And why, with unusual unanimity, do all of the orthodox Gospels except John have Christ saying "woe to that man by whom he is betrayed," in Luke's words?

Theology, whatever your religious beliefs, is important and fascinating because it has shaped-and, I fear, will shape-how we live our lives.
Fred Clark had a great post a month ago about the ways we construct myths to fit scripture into how we would like the world to work, and it seems to me that the construction of the theological characters of Christ and the apostles is one of the more interesting examples of that process.